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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Canon - Nikon Observations
On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 14:44:38 -0800, SMS
wrote in : Larry Thong wrote: Why would Nikon want to go backwards in optical technology? How many Canon lenses went into space? So that's your criteria for choosing lenses, which ones will work in space? Yep! This is why NASA exclusively uses Nikkors. Canon lenses have a nasty habit of the fluorite delaminating when tested under cold and low pressure as in high altitude or the vacuum of space. I'll keep that in mind the next time I plan a vacation or business trip into space. http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/lens/glossary.htm Nikon developed ED (Extra-low Dispersion) glass to enable the production of lenses that offer superior sharpness and color correction by minimizing chromatic aberration. Put simply, chromatic aberration is a type of image and color dispersion that occurs when light rays of varying wavelengths pass through optical glass. In the past, correcting this problem for telephoto lenses required special optical elements that offer anomalous dispersion characteristics -- specifically calcium fluoride crystals. However, fluorite easily cracks and is sensitive to temperature changes that can adversely affect focusing by altering the lens’ refractive index. So Nikon designers and engineers put their heads together and came up with ED glass, which offers all the benefits, yet none of the drawbacks of calcium fluorite-based glass. Nikon ED is a silica glass which is fluorite loaded. Nikon Super ED has a higher refractive index than fluorite. -- Best regards, John Panasonic DMC-FZ8, DMC-FZ20, and several others |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Canon - Nikon Observations
On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 13:54:40 -0800, SMS
wrote in : J. Clarke wrote: You're the one presenting the argument, it's up to you to defend it. I'm not arguing, I'm just stating incontrovertible facts that no one could possibly dispute. ROTFL! -- Best regards, John Panasonic DMC-FZ8, DMC-FZ20, and several others |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Canon - Nikon Observations
On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 17:23:43 GMT, measekite wrote
in : On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 14:30:18 +1000, D-Mac wrote: "measekite" wrote in message ... It's true the D3 is lower resolution than a 1D Mk III. What isn't clear most of the time is that at about 8 Mp, Digital exceeds fine grain 35mm film and can be enlarged to MF sizes due to lack of grain. Posters I've seen made by a rival with his 1D are not as well defined as posters I make from D3 images. The 21MP Canon 5D MKii will (more noticeably when cropped) will have a better print image quality than Nikon. ... Only with an extremely good lens at middle aperture and very careful photography (and very large printing). Otherwise the Canon will be lens limited, with little or no difference in prints. See my earlier post to another thread for the gory details. -- Best regards, John Panasonic DMC-FZ8, DMC-FZ20, and several others |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Canon - Nikon Observations
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. -- Best regards, John Panasonic DMC-FZ8, DMC-FZ20, and several others |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Canon - Nikon Observations
On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 11:08:33 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote in : SMS wrote: See "http://tinyurl.com/jfgirpd". So you admit that you were talking out your bunghole. Welcome to the party. -- Best regards, John Panasonic DMC-FZ8, DMC-FZ20, and several others |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Canon - Nikon Observations
In article , SMS
wrote: You're the one presenting the argument, it's up to you to defend it. I'm not arguing, I'm just stating incontrovertible facts that no one could possibly dispute. oh please. it gets disputed every time you spew the same canon mantra. |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Canon - Nikon Observations
In article , Stephen Bishop
wrote: Nikon hasn't been able to make any Fluorite element lenses, which greatly limits them in certain market segments, i.e. sports. And of course the Nikon lens mount precludes them from making certain lenses. Actually, Nikon does quite well with sports now that they have figured out how to make low noise high ISO bodies. You're seeing more and more big white lenses being replaced by non-attention-getting black Nikkor lenses at sporting events. yep, and partly because of the 1d mark iii issues. How is the lens mount significant with regard to making certain lenses? it isn't. he seems to think that because canon *can* make a 50mm f/1.0 lens that the nikon mount is inferior. There's a technical reason for the color of the BWLs. Theoretically to reflect heat. Then again, it can be argued that the Nikkors don't need that because they don't have to rely on those fragile fluorite elements to achieve their image quality. exactly. it's a different set of tradeoffs. Nikon basically invented ED glass as an alternative to fluorite. It seems that more and more lens makers are using ED because it has some big advantages. indeed. |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Canon - Nikon Observations
On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 06:36:09 -0500, Stephen Bishop wrote:
On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 17:23:43 GMT, measekite wrote: On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 14:30:18 +1000, D-Mac wrote: "measekite" wrote in message ... Basically, I like the Nikon D90 better than the Canon Digital Rebel Xsi. For me it just feels and handles better and there are more buttons for quicker access to everyday controls. The jury is still out about the Canon 50D. Most of the reviews claim that it is better than the D90 but after a quickie look the D90 seems more comfortable. The big difference between Canon and Nikon is in lenses. Not that you are going to get much better results with one over the other and not that either has super large gaping holes in their lens line that will persist over a reasonable period of time but the difference is in $$$$. It seems that the majority of Nikon lenses are more costly than Canon. I do not know what you are getting for the additional money. -------------------- Canon "consumer grade" lenses produce some pretty shocking CA and have real problems at middle distance focus. Several of the "L" lenses should never have been named a Professional lens either. The system Canon use wants to send the lens to infinity long before it should. Nikon's latest bunch of "Consumer grade" lenses are excellent. Some small CA is visible in the 18 -135 but generally, 80% less (IMO) than Canon lenses. Nikon's auto focus system whilst being slower than the Canon system is far more accurate. Middle distance focus is so much better than Canon's, you'd really wonder why they let it happen. I speak from experience. I dumped all my Canon gear over a 4 month period and bought Fuji and Nikon cameras. The last Canon's I had were a 5D and a 40D. You are right about the top end lenses being dearer than "L" Canon lenses but for perfectionists, there is no equal to the Nikon's in Canon's range. During my evaluation period I also used Pentax, Mamiya and Olympus cameras. But Nikon has no answer currently for the Canon 5D MKii It's true the D3 is lower resolution than a 1D Mk III. What isn't clear most of the time is that at about 8 Mp, Digital exceeds fine grain 35mm film and can be enlarged to MF sizes due to lack of grain. Posters I've seen made by a rival with his 1D are not as well defined as posters I make from D3 images. The 21MP Canon 5D MKii will (more noticeably when cropped) will have a better print image quality than Nikon. I would expect that a new version of the D700 will be out shortly. There may be some valid argument to buy Canon in the lower and Pro ranges but image quality is not one of them. Most Professional photographers using Canon gear do so only because they can rent $20,000 lenses pretty much on demand. Nikon Pros buy their own. Had I elected to stay with Canon, I would have saved the cost of a new car and gained access to the huge 1000mm FL lens they hire out to Pros. Then I asked myself WTF does a wedding and publication photographer want with such a lens? My wedding cameras all have 18 - 200 lenses on them. I carry a wider lens but have never used it in over 9 months. DxO Optics Pro fix the lens differences and make the images as good as if they'd been shot with a couple of lenses costing 4x the cost these. From my point of view, the 50D is just an evolution of the 20D without fixing any of the real problems facing mid range Canon DSLRs. The D90 is evolutionary also but it evolved from a pretty good camera in the first place so there are less problems brought forward. The movie thing is some sort of "mine's as good as yours" ****ing competition I think and really ought to be dropped if they can't get it right. Can you provide a lot of detail and specifics on why you feel that the Nikon D90 is better than the Canon 50D. Can you also explain why most of the reviews tout the Canon 50D over the Nikon D90. I know that the build quality of the Canon 50D is better but I do feel that for most the build quality of the D90 is good enough. And what about the D300? For a first time owner I'd recommend a Pentax or Olympus over either Nikon or Canon but getting into the area of serious photographers, The why? Nikon system is much better than the Canon stuff but if sports shooting why? (professionally) is where you're heading, Canon is the only choice that makes any financial sense. Douglas The bottom line is that in any of these "my camera is better" debates, the skill of those who actually think these things are important is by FAR the limiting factor in the quality of images they produce. I've used cameras from both companies. In the pre-digital era I used a Canon F-1 instead of the Nikon F because it was easier to handle and had equivalent image quality. Right now I prefer Nikon because I do think they have the edge in overall quality and I much prefer the way they handle and feel. IMO, if you can't already make a jaw-dropping photo with a D40 or a Rebel, then it is pointless to debate over which camera company makes the best high-end models. Oh, I just got my new D300... as far as cameras go, it's a true gem!!! Built like a tank, extremely quick, better than expected high ISO performance, and lots of really useful features... all with the best image quality you're going to find in a DX format camera. Specifically why did you pay a premium for the D300 over the D90? |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Canon - Nikon Observations
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. 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. 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. 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 |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Canon - Nikon Observations
On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 06:26:36 -0800, SMS wrote:
Stephen Bishop wrote: 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. Nikon hasn't been able to make any Fluorite element lenses, which greatly limits them in certain market segments, i.e. sports. And of What other market segments other than sports and why does that limit them? course the Nikon lens mount precludes them from making certain lenses. Where and why does the Nikon lens mount preclude them from making what kind of certain lenses? 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. 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? There's a technical reason for the color of the BWLs. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 |