Nikon maintains DSLR lead over Canon

["Followup-To:" header set to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems.]
Jeremy Nixon wrote:
SMS wrote:

Mount some Nikon AI lenses to a Canon digital D-SLR and see the
capabilities you gain versus mounting the same lenses to a Nikon D-SLR.

I'd rather have no metering, than have the lens stopped down to shooting
aperture while trying to compose the shot.

First compose, then stop down, then meter. Like, you know,
first pillage, *then* burn.

BTW, when Canon changed the lens mount from FD to EOS, they also
produced a professional quality lens adapter. It wasn't cheap (over
$200) but it worked well. They had a cheaper adapter for amateurs.

Oh, come on, be honest. It was a 1.3x teleconverter

1.28x.

that only worked
on a small number of long telephoto lenses.

Pray tell, which lenses are the most expensive? Normal, WA
or tele?

The cheaper one couldn't focus to infinity.

When did Canon offer that one?

Yeah, that's really looking after the users, there.

Yeah, Canon could have cluttered their bayonett with 4
different ways to close the aperture, 3 different methods of
determining the lens type, 3 different ways for AF --- all of
them incompatible to each other --- and so on.

Or Canon could go on and switch cleanly from pure mechanics
to electronics, and do it right.

If you wonder why Windows needs multi-GHz-CPUs just to show you
a stupid simple desktop, it's because they did it the former way.
But then, Windows is rewnowned for being secure and stable
and error-free.

-Wolfgang

ASAAR wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 21:50:12 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:

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?

The sensor does not tilt.

Like the system introduced by Minolta, the sensor shifts up/down and
sideways (if the lens is "z", then the sensor moves in x and y). Pentax
have added a rotation movement as well, so the sensor rotates (in a very
small arc) around the z axis.

This is a fine innovation as some of the "shake" is the photographer
depressing the shutter button and this tends to make a movement of
rotation around the lens axis.

http://www.pentaximaging.com/files/s...FACT_SHEET.pdf

Thanks for the link. Interesting stuff in it. The only question
it raises now is the effectiveness of Pentax's IS system compared to
the in-lens designs, since Pentax only claims up to a 2 stop
improvement, vs. claims of 3 stops for Nikon's older VR system, and
4 stops for their VR II.

Pentax is conservative in its claims. The K10D is capable of a 3 stop
improvement and reliably provides 2.5 stops. The Sony (Konica
Minolta) system struggles to obtain 2 stops, and is probably best
described as a reliable 1.5 stop system.

The new Sony cameras that are undergoing final development will be a
lot better. They will need to be, because based on current Sony
Alpha sales (a pitiful 2% of the Japanese DSLR market), the Alpha line
would soon be dead. If Sony cannot release at least one new model
before Christmas, they will have to forget their DSLR project, because
there is no point in making cameras that don't sell, as Konica Minolta
found out to their cost.

I assume that Canon's lens based IS is no
less effective than Nikon's.

As with Nikkors, different Canon EF lenses have differnt generations
of IS. Nikon's latest VR II is probably better than all of them, but
the difference between VR II and the third (latest) generation of
Canon's IS is not all that great.

Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:
Neil H. wrote:

We already went through this with Mark Morgan and he proved that IS
was ineffective on WA.

How exactly did he "prove" this?

He shot with the switch on as well as off under identical conditions. He
was one who passionately claimed VR/IS worked on WA till he reluctantly
proved it to himself that it didn't.

I know you believe this with a near-religious conviction, as you have
repeated it many times. But I've mentioned before that I've taken
shots at 28mm (equiv.) with my KM A200 at shutter speeds so low I
*know* I would not have gotten as sharp results without Anti-Shake.

It's only attributed to *your* perception that it is actually beneficial.
There were moments I thought VR helped on the wide end, but quickly
realized
it was attributed to good technique. Even Roger claims VR/IS works on the
WA but he can't scientifically quantify any real world benefits of VR/IS on
the wide end, and he's probably one of the few people in this group that
has
the scientific ability. Did you ever wonder why there are no manufacturer
published technical specifications of its effectiveness? There are no
reviews by the big photography mags or blogs that will even consider
publishing the effectiveness of VR/IS on WA.

Actually, I have tested IS both on and off at a variety of focal
lengths from extreme telephoto to wide angle, for the specific
purpose of writing an article about it. I haven't completed
the article, and do not have anything online yet, but I
have been examining the results. As one might expect, IS
works in certain regimes of exposure time and in others it
doesn't help. A surprising result is that there appears to be
regimes where it also *hurts* image quality. Like any feedback
system there are usually resonances, and if you are shooting near
one of these resonances images can be blurred. On a 300 f/4
L IS, this region is around 1/2000 second (where one does not
need IS anyway). At all focal lengths, IS helps when
the exposure time becomes slower than or similar to the
1/focal length rule, as long as exposure times are faster
than about 1/2 second. I've been testing by taking repeated
exposures of the same target, then measuring the resolution
on each frame. Statistics show when IS works and when it doesn't.
It does work on wide angle, again when exposoure time becomes
slower than 1/focal length in mm, statistically, more images
are sharper.

Roger

In article ,
Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
["Followup-To:" header set to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems.]
Jeremy Nixon wrote:
SMS wrote:

Mount some Nikon AI lenses to a Canon digital D-SLR and see the
capabilities you gain versus mounting the same lenses to a Nikon D-SLR.

I'd rather have no metering, than have the lens stopped down to shooting
aperture while trying to compose the shot.

First compose, then stop down, then meter. Like, you know,
first pillage, *then* burn.

So instead of getting a D200 that meters just fine with non-cpu Nikkors,
you get a camera that forces you to use stop-down metering?

Wow, way to go.


--
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

ASAAR wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 21:50:12 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:

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?
The sensor does not tilt.

Like the system introduced by Minolta, the sensor shifts up/down and
sideways (if the lens is "z", then the sensor moves in x and y). Pentax
have added a rotation movement as well, so the sensor rotates (in a very
small arc) around the z axis.

This is a fine innovation as some of the "shake" is the photographer
depressing the shutter button and this tends to make a movement of
rotation around the lens axis.

http://www.pentaximaging.com/files/s...FACT_SHEET.pdf

Thanks for the link. Interesting stuff in it. The only question
it raises now is the effectiveness of Pentax's IS system compared to
the in-lens designs, since Pentax only claims up to a 2 stop
improvement, vs. claims of 3 stops for Nikon's older VR system, and
4 stops for their VR II. I assume that Canon's lens based IS is no
less effective than Nikon's.

As Tony points out the number of stops gained is first of all subjective.

Secondly, the cropped sensors require that one think in terms of the
'effective' focal length if they intend to make larger prints. For
example the Pentax crop is 1.5x, so for a 100mm lens, the "rule of
thumb" speed is really 1/150. If the shake reduction is 2 stops, then
the slowest speed is around 1/40 (not 1/25 as the lens FL would
suggest). [If your intended print size is smaller, then you have a
little more latitude]

Thirdly, as the A-S/SR method corrects for translation and (SR:
rotation) and not the major contribution to movement (pitch/yaw), it is
quite unlikely that it can be as effective as IS/VR.

In first generation A-S (Konica-Minolta) I've tested the results and it
turns out to be very shooter dependant:
http://www.aliasimages.com/KM7D_AS_Test.htm
I went to no special pains to be as steady as possible in these tests
and as you can see the results from frame to frame are not highly
consistent. The degree of variance (from what I have seen) is a bit
lower in the IS system (and likely in the VR system).

Sony claimed that the A-S in the Alpha 100 was improved over the Max
7D/5D version. As I don't have an Alpha to repeat those tests I don't
have a result or opinion.

Sony also have the opportunity to improve the A-S in the upcoming two
models (pre-x-mas an "advanced amateur" and post-x-mas a "pro" model).

It would be nice to get 3 comparable lens lengths (say 50, 100 and 200
mm) for each Canon, Nikon, Sony/K-M, Pentax and the upcoming Olympus and
have 10 different people shoot all of them for at least 20 shots each
and then compare the results.

Only with enough samples of lenses, shots _and_ people will the relative
qualities of the various schemes emerge.

Assuming Sony improve the K-M A-S, then at least it's retro-fitable to
all my lenses, all of which (but one) are high-end and very sharp. My
least "sharp" lens is my 300 f/2.8 but one would have to be mad and
quite strong to shoot that free hand for more than a few frames. For
that matter, shooting my 135 f/1.8 is also not something one wants to do
very much free hand.

Cheers,
Alan




--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

David J Taylor wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
[]
As I stated a very long time ago, the main failing of in-camera shake
reduction is that it cannot compensate for pitch/yaw movement which is
the greater contributor to image blur. In camera helps, but cannot be
as good as optical systems.

Cheers,
Alan

Could you expand on that, Alan, please? I don't currently understand your
reasoning. I can see that lens-based IS could offer a greater shift than
a sensor-shift system.

The lens based IS/VR [Canon/Nikon] move an optical element (double
concave IIRC) in the x,y axis' (the lens axiz is z) to effect PITCH and
ROLL corrections in the movement. These are the two greatest
contributors to image blur from photog movement.

The sensor "moving" systems always have the sensor perpendicular to the
z axis and are attempting to keep the image in one spot while the camera
moves in translation in the x and y directions. The system is
correcting for a lesser contributor to image blur.

What Pentax have added is a rotation around the lens axis (not tilts as
Tony suggested) and this is a useful improvement as another contribution
to blur is camera rotation around the lens axis due to less than gentle
shutter depress. The only drawback (it just occured to me) is that the
system would have to measure this and compute the amount of correction
as it happens whereas the x,y movements are measured before the shutter
fires.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

And lo, Rita Ä Berkowitz emerged from the ether
and spake thus:
per wrote:

IS/VR on *ANY* lens of 50mm and wider is totally impractical and is
so ineffective that it is nothing more than a sales gimmick. Simply
put, IS/VR
does not work at these focal lengths.

That's funny, a Panasonic FZ8 or a Canon S3IS have focal ranges of
just 6-72mm and their vibration reduction systems are certainly
effective. /per

Hmm. We're talking dSLRs here, not point and shoot cameras. P&S cameras
have in body IS/VR and their focal length is very different from what a
traditional dSLR is. Both Nikon and Canon made a technical blunder by
putting VR/IS in the lens instead of the body on dSLRs. Then again, they
might have done it from a marketing perspective of where they can sell us
more expensive lenses. In-lens VR/IS does not work on lenses of 50mm and
wider since it is a physical impossibility.

Rita

Rita, calm down.

http://www.singleservingphoto.com/20...1/where-is-is/

There are plenty of good reasons to put IS in the camera or the lens.

Also, I think you misspoke. There is a physical limitation imposed by
in-camera IS after certain focal lengths on the long end because of
the amount of sensor motion required. All of that is explained pretty
well in Canon's Rebel whitepaper (linked from the above page).

I would think that in-camera or in-lens IS would become *more*
effective at shorter focal lengths because less and less compensatory
motion is required. The opposite is true for long focal lengths where
very, very small motions of the camera result in extremely large image
motions, requiring similarly large IS motions to compensate.

--
Aaron
http://www.fisheyegallery.com
http://www.singleservingphoto.com

frederick wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
John McWilliams wrote:

IAE, I am amazed at the number of regulars who appear to be arguing
with trolls such as the OP, "Baumbadier", and RichA.....

I didn't see it as a troll post as much as a Nikonite distorting the
the facts. Which would not exactly be a first.

Distorting what fact?

Your "subject" implied an overall result when in fact it is limited to
Japan. Hence the changed subject in my reply.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 06:00:26 -0400, Rita Ä Berkowitz ritaberk2O04
@aol.com wrote:

How exactly did he "prove" this?

He shot with the switch on as well as off under identical conditions. He
was one who passionately claimed VR/IS worked on WA till he reluctantly
proved it to himself that it didn't.

"under identical conditions" means under one set of conditions.
You can not translate that to mean "under all conditions".
Thus, no proof that VR/IS doesn't work on WA lenses.

--
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.

Alan Browne wrote:
David J Taylor wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
[]
As I stated a very long time ago, the main failing of in-camera
shake reduction is that it cannot compensate for pitch/yaw movement
which is the greater contributor to image blur. In camera helps,
but cannot be as good as optical systems.

Cheers,
Alan

Could you expand on that, Alan, please? I don't currently
understand your reasoning. I can see that lens-based IS could offer
a greater shift than a sensor-shift system.

The lens based IS/VR [Canon/Nikon] move an optical element (double
concave IIRC) in the x,y axis' (the lens axiz is z) to effect PITCH
and ROLL corrections in the movement. These are the two greatest
contributors to image blur from photog movement.

The sensor "moving" systems always have the sensor perpendicular to
the z axis and are attempting to keep the image in one spot while the
camera moves in translation in the x and y directions. The system is
correcting for a lesser contributor to image blur.

What Pentax have added is a rotation around the lens axis (not tilts
as Tony suggested) and this is a useful improvement as another
contribution to blur is camera rotation around the lens axis due to
less than gentle shutter depress. The only drawback (it just occured
to me) is that the system would have to measure this and compute the
amount of correction as it happens whereas the x,y movements are
measured before the shutter fires.

Cheers,
Alan

Thanks, Alan.

I don't quite follow your analysis for the sensor-moving systems. You
seem to be suggesting that accelerometers are measuring the camera's X and
Y translation, rather than the rotation which I'm sure they are actually
sensing. Any translation in the camera would only affect quite close
subjects, at least compared with the effects of rotation.

These systems don't detect movement based on the image content, so the
brief absences of the image wouldn't matter for either the rotations along
the X- and Y-axis, nor for rotations about the Z-axis.

I've not been aware of actually incurring rotational camera shake, but
perhaps I'll find it if I look more carefully.

Cheers,
David