Nikon User to Canon help me I'm slipping...

"Douglas" wrote in message
...

At first I bought a "Fuji" Nikon for no other reason than I had the glass
and was bitterly disappointed with the results. It wasn't until a customer
lent me their Canon 10D digital that I realised what I had seen as faults
in
digital photography were actually flaws in Nikon digital cameras.

Can you really blame Nikon for the issues with the Fuji SLRs? They are
lousy, but they are not Nikon cameras. It's like blaming Canon for the
Kodak/Sigma camera that has a Canon lens mount.

I have the most difficulty getting noise out of the shadows when I make
enlargements from Nikon files shot at 400 ISO (the newspaper's
requirements)
and the least difficulty with files from Canon 10D, 20D and my own 1D Mk
II
at ISO as high as 1600. I have yet to experience moiré ruining a Canon
picture but have several examples from Nikon DSLRs which have.

Moire is a big problem with the Nikon DSLRs. Not sure if this is sensor
related, or what.

wrote in message
...

Why do you suppose there are so many white lenses at sports
meetings?

Because many sports photographers use Canon cameras. Duh.

And the reasons for the dominance in this segment is well known. Nikon has
no equivalent of the BWLs, and their lens mount precludes them from ever
having an equivalent, and it's too late to try to compete in this segment
even if they came out with a new lens mount.

"Richard Favinger, Jr." wrote in message
news:BE8D47DF.12A26%

Am I going to burn switching to Canon, or am I really better off just
riding
it out with Nikon. Going to Digital, Canon or Nikon, will be a major
investment for me. So I'd like thoughts on people who may have switched.

You're certainly not alone, among professionals, in trying to decide whether
it's worthwhile to wait around for Nikon to enter the high-end professional
digital SLR market. You're correct about the D2x, though I don't believe it
is really as bad as everyone has been saying--it's just not as good as what
Canon offers in the same segment.

If you believe it when Nikon says that they have no plans to go to larger
sensors in professional bodies, then make the switch now, and be done with
it. OTOH, most industry analysts believe than Nikon is just blowing smoke to
buy time, and is deep into development of a full-frame, or close to a
full-frame sensor. If this is the case, then you'd be better off waiting,
and maybe using a D70 for a while, while you wait for the successor the D2x.

Are you losing enough business that spending $10,000 on Canon versus $5000
on Nikon will be worth it? Are you willing to live with the issues with the
D2x, or wait for the next model?

"Steven M. Scharf" wrote in message
hlink.net...
snip
Moire is a big problem with the Nikon DSLRs. Not sure if this is sensor
related, or what.



Steven,

Nikon intentionally chose to use a less agressive anti-aliasing filter. I
own three Nikon DSLRs, the D70, D100 and D2X and in thousands and thousands
of shots have seen moire once -- on a screen door -- that I guarantee would
have shown moire on any Canon product too.

This is often used as a weak argument by people trying to discredit Nikon
products, but in the real world, it is not an issue.

At all.

Tom

"Steven M. Scharf" wrote in message
ink.net...
"Richard Favinger, Jr." wrote in message
news:BE8D47DF.12A26%

Am I going to burn switching to Canon, or am I really better off just
riding
it out with Nikon. Going to Digital, Canon or Nikon, will be a major
investment for me. So I'd like thoughts on people who may have switched.

You're certainly not alone, among professionals, in trying to decide
whether
it's worthwhile to wait around for Nikon to enter the high-end
professional
digital SLR market. You're correct about the D2x, though I don't believe
it
is really as bad as everyone has been saying--it's just not as good as
what
Canon offers in the same segment.
snip

I'm losing more and more respect for you with broad statements like this.
The reviews are very facorable for the D2X and it is an incredible camera.
For every quote you can find that it is not, or that the 1DsMkII is worth
the extra money, I can find you one that is at the opposite end of the
spectrum.

I was surprised at your anti-Sigma campaign, but perhaps they deserved it,
but you're sounding at bad as Tony with these broad, baseless comments.

Tom

Steven M. Scharf wrote:
wrote in message
...

Why do you suppose there are so many white lenses at sports
meetings?

Because many sports photographers use Canon cameras. Duh.

And the reasons for the dominance in this segment is well
known. Nikon has no equivalent of the BWLs, and their lens mount
precludes them from ever having an equivalent, and it's too late to
try to compete in this segment even if they came out with a new lens
mount.

The usual nonsense, in other words.

We've been round this before, and you failed to come up with any Canon
Lenses that are actually used by sports photgraphers that don't have
Nikon equivalents. The best you could manage was the 200/1.8 which
isn't even available any more. If we can talk about unobtainable
lenses I'll raise you 300mm f/2.

Back on planet Earth, thse two manufacturers compete with a very
simliar range of lenses, a fact which won't surprise anyone.

Andrew.

Steven M. Scharf wrote:

You're certainly not alone, among professionals, in trying to decide whether
it's worthwhile to wait around for Nikon to enter the high-end professional
digital SLR market.

They have.

You're correct about the D2x, though I don't believe it is really as bad
as everyone has been saying--it's just not as good as what Canon offers
in the same segment.

Many seem to disagree, and say it is as good or better.

Are you losing enough business that spending $10,000 on Canon versus $5000
on Nikon will be worth it? Are you willing to live with the issues with the
D2x, or wait for the next model?

Which issues would those be?

--
Jeremy |

"Tom Scales" wrote in message
.. .

Steven,

Nikon intentionally chose to use a less agressive anti-aliasing filter. I
own three Nikon DSLRs, the D70, D100 and D2X and in thousands and
thousands of shots have seen moire once -- on a screen door -- that I
guarantee would have shown moire on any Canon product too.

This is often used as a weak argument by people trying to discredit Nikon
products, but in the real world, it is not an issue.

At all.

Tom
I have no interest in discrediting any camera maker. I merely reply with
factual information to someone asking valid questions about exactly what I
did and the reasons why. I think Nikon make some of the sharpest, highest
contrast lenses in the world. I think Canon make some of the worst digital
cameras in the world too. It still doesn't change reasons and results.

Douglas

Steven M. Scharf wrote:

If you believe it when Nikon says that they have no plans to go to larger
sensors in professional bodies, then make the switch now, and be done with
it. OTOH, most industry analysts believe than Nikon is just blowing smoke to
buy time, and is deep into development of a full-frame, or close to a
full-frame sensor. If this is the case, then you'd be better off waiting,
and maybe using a D70 for a while, while you wait for the successor the D2x.

There is just no way that Nikon is not going to go to a larger sensor.
They'll find a rationale for the change that artfully addresses what
they've said in the past regarding larger sensors. Everyone knows that
the only reason that Nikon is dismissive of the larger sensors is
because they don't have one.

Personally, if I were the original poster, I'd do exactly as you
recommended. Get the D70 or D70x for the short term, while waiting for
the successor to the D2x. The D2x is too expensive, given the issues
with it, though these issues aren't as big as the reviews make them out
to be. You have too much glass to make the move, unless you truly need a
high end professional camera.

Yakov Chiu wrote:

Personally, if I were the original poster, I'd do exactly as you
recommended. Get the D70 or D70x

Sorry, I meant the D70s, not the D70x.