A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Canon - Nikon Observations



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old January 10th 09, 07:49 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Stephen Bishop
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,062
Default Canon - Nikon Observations

On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 16:41:13 -0800, John Navas
wrote:

On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 21:39:39 -0800, SMS
wrote in :

Nikon's low-end lenses are pretty bad in terms of chromatic aberration
and focusing, similar to what Canon used to bundle with their very low
end film Rebel SLRs, and which I don't think are even available any
more. Many of the Canon mid-range lenses have L quality optics, but lack
the professional build quality of the L lenses. For mid-range lenses,
the Canon lenses tend to have faster and more accurate AF, though of
course part of the AF accuracy and speed depends on the body.

It was interesting to watch the Canon-Nikon wars back when the EOS
system was introduced. You had a lot of pros switching to Canon because
of the in-lens focusing motors. Nikon copied that innovation, then Canon
came out with their L lenses and the fluorite element lenses that
Nikon tried to counter with their low-dispersion element lenses, but
never managed to get up to the quality of the Canon lenses. Most of the
remaining Nikon professionals made the switch when Nikon insisted that
there was no need for full frame digital and said that they had no plans
for full frame bodies.

Has any pro ever switched to Nikon from Canon? I'm sure it's happened
but you never hear about it. It's always stuff like 'I switched to Canon
because I wanted a high-resolution full frame body,' or 'I needed to
switch to Canon because I'm doing sports photography and Nikon lacks the
lenses I need."


Utter nonsense.


For once I can say I agree with John. Although I wouldn't consider
it to be utter nonsense, but the above isn't completely factual. When
the D3 and D700 came out, lots of pros switched back to Nikon.

It's true that Nikon dragged their feet for too many years over things
like full frame and other innovations; but now that they've woken up
they are once again the game to beat.

This is just one data point, but I've heard similar comments: About
a year ago, I personally asked one pro why he chose his D2 over the
Canon 1D. His answer, without hesitating, was, "I want a camera that
I know will still work if I drop it."





  #62  
Old January 10th 09, 08:20 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
measekite
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 821
Default Canon - Nikon Observations

On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 08:06:42 -0500, Stephen Bishop wrote:

On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 03:16:17 GMT, measekite
wrote:


Specifically why did you pay a premium for the D300 over the D90?


1. More rugged, better construction quality
2. No movie gimmicks
3. Much better autofocus
4. Quicker and more responsive
5. Better image quality
6. Better metering
7. Ability to fine-tune the AF of individual lenses

I guess those are the main reasons. Coming from a D200, the D300 is
also very familiar to me. Also I bought a factory refurbished model
with a 3 year warranty at a great price, so the difference in price
between it and a new D90 wasn't as big.

But the D90 is certainly a great camera compared to others in its
class. Nikon does a super job with their "plastic fantastics"
compared to the competition.


It appears from reading your posts that you would choose a Nikon D90 over
a Canon 50D and spend less money on the body.

Why would you do this (if I am correct in my assumption)?
  #63  
Old January 10th 09, 08:29 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
measekite
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 821
Default Canon - Nikon Observations

On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 13:21:19 -0500, Stephen Bishop wrote:

On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 03:42:06 GMT, measekite
wrote:



So are you saying that you can take a Nikkor $5,000 200-400mm lens and a
70-300mm lens and shoot the same thing with the same body in the same
what at 300mm using the same f stop and then print them at 16x20, matt
and frame them and then hang them on a wall and you would see a dramatic
and significant different in the two prints handing side by side?



That depends on what you mean by "dramatic."


Noticeable where you can see it when you are not pixel peeping.
  #64  
Old January 10th 09, 08:32 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
measekite
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 821
Default Canon - Nikon Observations

On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 00:10:51 -0800, Savageduck wrote:

On 2009-01-09 19:37:11 -0800, measekite said:


That said I narrowed my search down to the Nikon D90 (unless I absolutely
need full frame to get top image quality 16x25 in which case the Canon 5d2
is the only ball game at the under $3,000 price that I am not happy about
spending) and the Canon 50D that is known to be built better but the D90
build appears to be good enough for my use. The D90 feels somewhat better
and there are non modal buttons for all of the every day commands.

Here are the lenses I am considering with the camera. If any of you would
like to recommend a different lens in one of the places please state which
one and the reason.

* AF-S DX Zoom-NIKKOR 12-24mm f/4G IF-ED $800
* AF-S DX VR Zoom-NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED $620
* AF-S VR Micro-NIKKOR 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED $730

Optional
* AF-S VR Zoom-NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED $470


That will give you a good working bag. The NG critics and "Pro" glass
heavy breathers will sigh, but you will be able to produce the images
you want.

My current set up is as follows:
D70
D300 + MB-D10
18-70mm Nikkor DX (D70 kit)
12-24mm Nikkor
35mm f2.0 Nikkor
24-120mm VR Nikkor (which is my general use lens)
80-400mm VR Nikkor (Oh so slow! but does Ok long)
70-200mm VR
SB-800


Read the Ken Rockwell review on your general use lens, the 24-120VR and
let me know if he has a point or if it is just bull****. You use it all
of the time and I would like to know what you see.
  #65  
Old January 10th 09, 08:34 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
measekite
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 821
Default Canon - Nikon Observations

On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 13:42:16 -0500, Stephen Bishop wrote:

On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 03:37:11 GMT, measekite
wrote:

On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 06:42:25 -0500, Stephen Bishop wrote:

On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 12:42:01 -0800, SMS
wrote:

measekite wrote:

And what about the remainder of SMS comments where he actually claims that
Canon lenses are superior to Nikon.

Hold on there, I never really said that (or I didn't mean to say it that
way). What I meant to say that in each price class for lenses, Canon
_usually_ delivers equal or better results at equal or lower cost. If
cost were not a consideration, you could probably match up Nikon and
Canon lenses pretty closely until you moved up to the professional "big
white lenses" where Nikon doesn't compete.

Actually, Nikon does compete against the L line. They just don't
paint them white. But Canon does have more top pro lenses to choose
from, particularly at the very long end.


If a D-SLR buyer is starting from scratch, with no existing lenses, then
it's certainly worth considering the cost differential for lenses of
similar quality when choosing which system to buy into. But it's only
one of many considerations. As David pointed out, Canon was very late to
the game with their 18-200 IS lens, and if someone wanted that type of
lens, up until recently that would have been a reason to not even
consider Canon.


As in all things in life, you usually get what you pay for. Pro
level Nikon glass is amazingly good, it just doesn't call attention to
itself with the embellishment of a "luxury" label and a different
color. Nikkors also have a three year warranty vs. one year for
the Canons.


Just had a discussion with a friend of mine who is a pro photographer. He
shoots with a Nikon F5, a Canon 5Dmlii, and an RB67.

We had a discussion over lenses.

Part of the discussion was over the Nikkor 24x120 that he has used for 8
years. I told him that is made the Terrible List of Ken Rockwells worst
of the worst of Nikkor lenses and that Ken owns and tested this lens
saying it is soft etc etc and the image quality is not good when compared
against other Nikon Alternatives.

My friend claimed that Ken was wrong. That the lens is "razor sharp". He
further stated you can put this lens up against a $5,000 Nikkor lens and
print 16x20 and not see any difference in image quality.


I think you'll find that Ken Rockwell is wrong on a lot of things.



So what is your opinion of the 24-120Vr








Now I find this hard to believe since other reviews while not as harsh
against the 25x120 as Ken did note that it is not one of Nikons best.

Also I questioned my friend on why would so many pro photographers buy
$5,000 Nikkor lenses if the $1,000 ones produced just as good a quality.
His reply was they just wanted it and then saw stuff that really was not
there to jusify what they did like the audiophile who pays $20,000 for a
speaker system that does sound great but are the only ones who can here
the difference between that and a system for $10,000.



It is true that under ideal conditions, a less expensive lens can
perform as well as a more expensive one. By ideal conditions, I mean
good lighting and stopped down to the "sweet spot" aperture for that
lens. What the more expensive glass buys you is usually a larger
maximum aperture and better image quality at all apertures. That can
be important for professionals who don't want to limit themselves to
those "ideal" conditions to get the best possible images.

The better lenses are also built better, which becomes more important
over time as the lens gets heavy use.




I am not a pro. I do not want to make a mistake. I do want to print up
to 16x25. I do not want to push myself for a full frame camera unless
that is what i need to do what I just described.

I own a Nikon F2A but the lenses are not autofocus so I may sell the
system. I no longer want anything that is not autofocus and autometering.
So you can say I am starting from scratch. I bought the Nikon over Canon
at the time because I liked the look and feel better and I thought at
that time Nikon was better but that appears to be debatable.

That said I narrowed my search down to the Nikon D90 (unless I absolutely
need full frame to get top image quality 16x25 in which case the Canon 5d2
is the only ball game at the under $3,000 price that I am not happy about
spending) and the Canon 50D that is known to be built better but the D90
build appears to be good enough for my use. The D90 feels somewhat better
and there are non modal buttons for all of the every day commands.


If the D90 feels better to you, then you'll be happier and more likely
to use it. IMO the D300 is better, but you really can't go wrong
with any of the Nikons. It all depends on what set of features is
most important to you.



Here are the lenses I am considering with the camera. If any of you would
like to recommend a different lens in one of the places please state which
one and the reason.

* AF-S DX Zoom-NIKKOR 12-24mm f/4G IF-ED $800


Highly recommended. It is probably the best DX format wide zoom
available. I love mine.

* AF-S DX VR Zoom-NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED $620


I don't have this one, but everyone I know who does loves it. Its
drawback is the relatively slow speed, but then again it is very
compact and good to use for a general-use lens in good lighting. It
seems to be pretty good in terms of image quality, but it apparently
lacks the "super" quality of Nikon's more expensive professional
zooms.


* AF-S VR Micro-NIKKOR 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED $730



I would love to have this one. I have the 60mm 2.8 Micro-Nikkor
(without VR) and it is one of the the sharpest lenses I've seen.



Optional
* AF-S VR Zoom-NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED $470


I've also got this one. It is very nice for a lightweight tele that
can be hand held. However, I would like to replace mine with the
70-200 VR f/2.8 for reasons I stated a few parapraphs above. I would
consider the Nikon 1.4x teleconverter to regain the 300mm reach.

Good luck. Buying a new system is always exciting!

  #66  
Old January 10th 09, 08:37 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
measekite
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 821
Default Canon - Nikon Observations

On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 13:49:54 -0500, Stephen Bishop wrote:

On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 16:41:13 -0800, John Navas
wrote:

On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 21:39:39 -0800, SMS
wrote in :

Nikon's low-end lenses are pretty bad in terms of chromatic aberration
and focusing, similar to what Canon used to bundle with their very low
end film Rebel SLRs, and which I don't think are even available any
more. Many of the Canon mid-range lenses have L quality optics, but lack
the professional build quality of the L lenses. For mid-range lenses,
the Canon lenses tend to have faster and more accurate AF, though of
course part of the AF accuracy and speed depends on the body.

It was interesting to watch the Canon-Nikon wars back when the EOS
system was introduced. You had a lot of pros switching to Canon because
of the in-lens focusing motors. Nikon copied that innovation, then Canon
came out with their L lenses and the fluorite element lenses that
Nikon tried to counter with their low-dispersion element lenses, but
never managed to get up to the quality of the Canon lenses. Most of the
remaining Nikon professionals made the switch when Nikon insisted that
there was no need for full frame digital and said that they had no plans
for full frame bodies.

Has any pro ever switched to Nikon from Canon? I'm sure it's happened
but you never hear about it. It's always stuff like 'I switched to Canon
because I wanted a high-resolution full frame body,' or 'I needed to
switch to Canon because I'm doing sports photography and Nikon lacks the
lenses I need."


Utter nonsense.


For once I can say I agree with John. Although I wouldn't consider
it to be utter nonsense, but the above isn't completely factual. When
the D3 and D700 came out, lots of pros switched back to Nikon.

It's true that Nikon dragged their feet for too many years over things
like full frame and other innovations; but now that they've woken up
they are once again the game to beat.




How can you say that? Canon has a 21mp full frame (Canon 5DMkii) for
about $2,700 and Nikon does not have anything to compete in that price
range. The more MP the larger you can print.

I have heard rumors about a D700X for over $4,000 expected price but that
will not compete either.



This is just one data point, but I've heard similar comments: About
a year ago, I personally asked one pro why he chose his D2 over the
Canon 1D. His answer, without hesitating, was, "I want a camera that
I know will still work if I drop it."

  #67  
Old January 10th 09, 09:39 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
John Navas[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,956
Default Canon - Nikon Observations

On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 19:37:58 GMT, measekite wrote
in :

On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 13:49:54 -0500, Stephen Bishop wrote:

On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 16:41:13 -0800, John Navas
wrote:


Utter nonsense.


For once I can say I agree with John. Although I wouldn't consider
it to be utter nonsense, but the above isn't completely factual. When
the D3 and D700 came out, lots of pros switched back to Nikon.

It's true that Nikon dragged their feet for too many years over things
like full frame and other innovations; but now that they've woken up
they are once again the game to beat.


How can you say that? Canon has a 21mp full frame (Canon 5DMkii) for
about $2,700 and Nikon does not have anything to compete in that price
range. The more MP the larger you can print.

I have heard rumors about a D700X for over $4,000 expected price but that
will not compete either.


One item at one point in time does not a convincing general case make.

--
Best regards,
John
Panasonic DMC-FZ8, DMC-FZ20, and several others
  #68  
Old January 10th 09, 09:46 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
SMS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,312
Default Canon - Nikon Observations

measekite wrote:

So what is your opinion of the 24-120Vr


Rockwell wasn't talking about the VR, he was talking about the 24-120 if
he's been using it for eight years, since the VR version came out in
2003 or 2004. The 24-120 was widely regarded as a very poor lens, and if
all Nikon did to it was to add VR, then no doubt it's still just as bad.

I remember when Nikon released the 24-120 in 1997, then abruptly
recalled it, then re-released it.
  #69  
Old January 10th 09, 09:49 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
SMS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,312
Default Canon - Nikon Observations

Stephen Bishop wrote:

For once I can say I agree with John. Although I wouldn't consider
it to be utter nonsense, but the above isn't completely factual. When
the D3 and D700 came out, lots of pros switched back to Nikon.


Where is your evidence of that? Or are you just pulling a Navas and
making it all up out of thin air?

What would be the motivation for a pro to sell all of his or her Canon
lenses, flashes, grips, etc, to move to the D3 or D700 when Canon has
bodies that are much better (more expensive bodies, but when you take
into account the investment in lenses and flashes, the net cost is less).
  #70  
Old January 10th 09, 10:56 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Canon - Nikon Observations

In article , measekite
wrote:

It's true that Nikon dragged their feet for too many years over things
like full frame and other innovations; but now that they've woken up
they are once again the game to beat.


How can you say that? Canon has a 21mp full frame (Canon 5DMkii) for
about $2,700 and Nikon does not have anything to compete in that price
range. The more MP the larger you can print.


nikon has the d700 in that price range, and it has a different mix of
features. while the 5d ii has more pixels and video, the d700 has a
faster frame rate and a more capable focusing system. the d700 is
basically a mini-d3. it all depends what feature mix you want. not
everyone wants to print super-large.

I have heard rumors about a D700X for over $4,000 expected price but that
will not compete either.


i've heard all sorts of rumours, including a full frame d400. what
matters is what they introduce, not what people speculate.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
My observations! kombizz[_2_] Digital Photography 0 February 2nd 08 07:27 AM
[SI] My observations and ramblings Cryptopix 35mm Photo Equipment 15 January 26th 08 08:24 AM
Nikkor 135mm f/2 AIS observations Paul Furman 35mm Photo Equipment 26 June 24th 07 12:45 AM
Nikkor 135mm f/2 AIS observations Paul Furman Digital SLR Cameras 27 June 24th 07 12:45 AM
Leica C-Lux 2 - any first observations? Any other recommendation? Philip Dygéus Digital Photography 2 June 27th 06 05:07 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:02 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.