Nikon maintains DSLR lead over Canon

dj_nme wrote:

Tony Polson wrote:
snip
The new, "high-end" Sony sensor to be used in Sony Alpha, Pentax and
Nikon DSLRs will have a "crop factor" of 1.1X to allow for in-camera
anti-shake. Sony engineers have described it as "near full frame".

My guess is that this is as big as the sensor can be before the mirror
box and body have to be enlarged to allow for AS movement.

The governing factors incude lens coverage. A full frame sensor with
in-body anti-shake would take the sensor out of the coverage of many
lenses, resulting in severe vignetting at one or two corners, and
reduced optical performance.

Just like the difference in size between the Pentax ist-DS and the
K100D, the K100D body is several mm deeper/thicker to give extra room
for the AS mechanism.
ISTR that Minolta was the first to come out with in-body AS and if the
same engineers were carried over to Sony, then they really do know what
they're going on about.

Pentax came to anti-shake rather later than Minolta, but their system
works far better. So far, the K10D has the best in-camera anti-shake
system of any DSLR. Not only does it give a reliable 2.5 to 3 stop
improvement, it also tilts the sensor slightly, better aligning it
towards the incident light rays.

I sold most of my Pentax gear (including an *ist D) a few months
before the K10D was introduced. I wish I had kept it a little longer,
as the K10D is a superb DSLR, and the soon-to-be-announced 1.1X crop
semi-pro model will be a very attractive option.

In fact the whole next generation of DSLRs will be very exciting
indeed, with some superb introductions from Canon, Nikon, Pentax,
Olympus and Sony.

Tony Polson wrote:
SMS wrote:

Tony Polson wrote:

If you mean compatibility with *all* currently available lenses, you
would have to choose the D200, because the D80 is not compatible with
some of them.
What is the reason that Lensbabies will meter with the D200, but not the
D40, D50, D70, D70S, D80, & D100?


The D200 has no need to interrogate an in-lens chip. All the others
need to, so they will only meter with AF Nikkors (and compatible
chipped independent lenses).

You can still shoot with an unchipped lens on those cameras, but to
get the correct exposure, you need to use a hand held light meter, or
meter by trial and error.

I see. I thought it was kind of strange that they said "Automatic light
metering is possible by shooting in aperture priority mode for almost
all digital and film SLR camera bodies" then qualified it with a list of
D-SLRs that probably make up about 25% of all the D-SLRs ever sold.

I guess that's a good reason to opt for Canon bodies over Nikon, other
than the D200, besides the lens compatibility issue you mentioned.

SMS wrote:

I guess that's a good reason to opt for Canon bodies over Nikon, other
than the D200, besides the lens compatibility issue you mentioned.


I guess that you will find just about *any* excuse to shill for Canon.

In rec.photo.digital SMS wrote:
Tony Polson wrote:

I guess that's a good reason to opt for Canon bodies over Nikon, other
than the D200, besides the lens compatibility issue you mentioned.

How is it that Canon is a better choice here? I think most of their consumer
brands [i.e. 300D (Digital Rebel), 350D (Digital Rebel Xt), 400D (Digital
Rebel Xti)] are similarily limitted. I can't say for sure about the 20D or
30D, which is the level that the Nikon D200 seems to compete on.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse

We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from the
machinations of the wicked.

On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 08:00:45 -0700, Canonista fanboy SMS wrote:

I see. I thought it was kind of strange that they said "Automatic light
metering is possible by shooting in aperture priority mode for almost
all digital and film SLR camera bodies" then qualified it with a list of
D-SLRs that probably make up about 25% of all the D-SLRs ever sold.

I guess that's a good reason to opt for Canon bodies over Nikon, other
than the D200, besides the lens compatibility issue you mentioned.

You betcha. It's amazing how many photographers are clamoring for
Lensbabies. Ta ta, gotta run. B&H is sure to have a Cabbage Patch
Lensbaby patiently waiting for me, even if my Nikon isn't a D200.

On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 15:52:58 +0100, Tony Polson wrote:

Pentax came to anti-shake rather later than Minolta, but their system
works far better. So far, the K10D has the best in-camera anti-shake
system of any DSLR. Not only does it give a reliable 2.5 to 3 stop
improvement, it also tilts the sensor slightly, better aligning it
towards the incident light rays.

If you can say that Pentax does it "far better" you should be able
to quantify it to some extent. Do the others brand DSLRs give a
reliable 1.5 to 2 stop improvement (justifying "far better") or
something closer to a 2.4 to 2.9 stop improvement?

I also wonder about tilting the sensor. Wouldn't that also shift
most of the sensor out of the desired focal plane if it's shifted
enough to have any noticeable effect? Where was this tilted sensor
mentioned?

Tony Polson wrote:
SMS wrote:
I guess that's a good reason to opt for Canon bodies over Nikon, other
than the D200, besides the lens compatibility issue you mentioned.


I guess that you will find just about *any* excuse to shill for Canon.

Oh please. When you're starting from scratch, you look at _all_ the
factors, pros, cons, and limitations of what's available, including what
accessories are available and compatible.

If the choice were between a Canon 5D and Nikon D200, there would be
legitimate trade-offs for each body, with the 5D winning out in noise
and high ISO performance, but the D200 winning in exposure and
auto-focus. When the choice is between a D40x and an EOS-400D, there is
no contest, and it's not just the lack of stand-alone metering.

Why does every other digital SLR, including the low-end models from
Olympus, Konica-Minolta, and Pentax, not have the issue that all the
Nikon models except the D200 have with metering with devices like the
Lensbabies? Clearly it's something that Nikon could have included on the
other bodies, since they included it on the D200.

Nikon seems to try very hard to segment their market not just by
resolution, ruggedness, and build quality, but also by defeaturing
models in a way that makes the more knowledgeable buyer eschew the lower
end models for other reasons. I don't see this from Pentax, Olympus,
Canon, or Sony/Konica-Minolta.

On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 22:33:38 +1000, dj_nme wrote:

My guess is that this is as big as the sensor can be before the mirror
box and body have to be enlarged to allow for AS movement.

I can see why the sensor would need to be larger than "full size" with
in-camera IS, but why would the mirror box need to be larger?
The front surface of the sensor will need to be in the same place, and
the space behind the sensor will need to be larger, due to the IS
mechanism. But with the sensor surface being in the same place, the
shutter can remain where it is now.
Why does the mirror box need to be larger?

--
THIS IS A SIG LINE; NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY!

Al Gore's son was pulled over by police on the
San Diego Freeway Tuesday with marijuana, Valium,
Xanax and Vicodin on him. The kid never had a
chance. He got hooked on downers at an early
age listening to his father read him bedtime
stories.

In article , SMS
wrote:

The D200 has no need to interrogate an in-lens chip. All the others
need to, so they will only meter with AF Nikkors (and compatible
chipped independent lenses).

You can still shoot with an unchipped lens on those cameras, but to
get the correct exposure, you need to use a hand held light meter, or
meter by trial and error.

I see. I thought it was kind of strange that they said "Automatic light
metering is possible by shooting in aperture priority mode for almost
all digital and film SLR camera bodies" then qualified it with a list of
D-SLRs that probably make up about 25% of all the D-SLRs ever sold.

I guess that's a good reason to opt for Canon bodies over Nikon, other
than the D200, besides the lens compatibility issue you mentioned.

at least old nikon manual focus lenses are usable and they can easily
be found for very cheap. canon fd lenses are essentially worthless
now.

In article , SMS
wrote:

If the choice were between a Canon 5D and Nikon D200, there would be
legitimate trade-offs for each body, with the 5D winning out in noise
and high ISO performance, but the D200 winning in exposure and
auto-focus. When the choice is between a D40x and an EOS-400D, there is
no contest, and it's not just the lack of stand-alone metering.

that spot metering and auto iso works so great on the 400d. oh wait -
there is no spot meter or auto-iso. you need to move on up to the 30d
for the former and the latter doesn't even exist until the 1d mark iii.
talk about segmenting the market!

Why does every other digital SLR, including the low-end models from
Olympus, Konica-Minolta, and Pentax, not have the issue that all the
Nikon models except the D200 have with metering with devices like the
Lensbabies? Clearly it's something that Nikon could have included on the
other bodies, since they included it on the D200.

removing the mechanical coupling lever saves nikon money. not a lot of
people use old lenses on a low end body and there isn't a compelling
reason to include it. it makes a lot of sense, except to you.

pentax also removed the mechanical coupling lever, however, their
cameras can be made to take a meter reading with a button press and it
has to be done every time. it is slightly better but not by much.

Nikon seems to try very hard to segment their market not just by
resolution, ruggedness, and build quality, but also by defeaturing
models in a way that makes the more knowledgeable buyer eschew the lower
end models for other reasons. I don't see this from Pentax, Olympus,
Canon, or Sony/Konica-Minolta.

no, you seem to try very hard to make up problems for other brands just
to push canon or whatever else is on your agenda.