Is this true about Canon?

"M-M" wrote in message
...
Someone else wrote the following and I'm wondering if it is true:

Both Canon and Nikon have their merits, but some of what is quoted is
just plain wrong.

"Canon for some time has been the faster better sports equipment. Not
all just in auto focus but also frames per second and write speed to
the
buffer is also faster. Read the features and compare.

That's good advice, since reading the features and comparing is where
you learn the truth.

There are also
many more lenses in the Canon system.

Last time I counted (last fall), the difference was a few lenses...not
exactly a big difference. The only place where Nikon lacks really is the
tilt/shift model that Canon has. And when it comes to good quality
consumer lenses, Nikon is doing better than Canon right now.

Nikon only does as well as it
does because so many photographers had a large number of Nikon lenses
as
the photo world began to change.

Except that many of those lenses are useless for sports and action since
they lack autofocus. Yet Nikon still has a good share of the market.

you ever use a Canon Camera for just a short while you will see what I
am talking about and you would never look back.

I laugh when I read stuff like this because I used to own Canon gear
with some nice L glass, and I sold it all to make the switch to Nikon.
The reason? Ergonomics.

I found the Nikon bodies have better control layout and are much more
comfortable to hold. I compared the Canon 30D and Nikon D80 models, and
opted to make the switch to Nikon rather than buy another Canon model.

Of course that's just me. Others may find the Canon better in their
hands, so handling is subjective.

"Read about their ring ultrasonic motor for rapid autofocus. Hold a
Nikon in your hands and then a Canon--and compare the rapidity of
autofocus with a long lens (a Canon white lens)--even to Nikon's own
version of the ring ultrasonic motor."

I think the person who said that is either a twit, or hasn't used any
recent lenses from Nikon.

I own the Nikon 18-70, 50 f/1.8, and 70-200 VR. They all focus equally
as fast as similar Canon models. I used the 70-200 VR on a D70s
side-by-side with Canons 70-200 f/4 L on an XT, so I have first-hand
experience and know that most of Nikons AF-S lenses are very fast and
very accurate.

Nikon has other advantages too, but like most of the comments above, the
differences are small and it all comes down to what the individual user
needs or prefers.

Bill wrote:
"M-M" wrote in message
...
Someone else wrote the following and I'm wondering if it is true:

Both Canon and Nikon have their merits, but some of what is quoted is
just plain wrong.

"Canon for some time has been the faster better sports equipment. Not
all just in auto focus but also frames per second and write speed to the
buffer is also faster. Read the features and compare.

That's good advice, since reading the features and comparing is where
you learn the truth.

There are also
many more lenses in the Canon system.

Last time I counted (last fall), the difference was a few lenses...not
exactly a big difference. The only place where Nikon lacks really is the
tilt/shift model that Canon has. And when it comes to good quality
consumer lenses, Nikon is doing better than Canon right now.

The post was specifically about fast sports photo equipment. In the fast
action department, Canon certainly has the fastest pro digital camera
(the 1D Mark IIN). But the difference in sports and wildlife action
photography between Nikon and Canon started before the digital era.
The main difference for this type of photography is image stabilization
in the super telephoto category. Nikon has no stabilized super telephotos.
Nikon had very few lenses with VR back in the film days to compete
with Canon's IS and Nikon still lags in the upper telephoto range
(e.g. Canon's 500 and 600 mm f/4 IS have no competition, unfortunately).

In the digital era, there are two areas where Canon is out in front:
larger sensors and lower noise. Canon has full 35mm frame pro
bodies and Nikon does not. Canon's CMOS sensors generally have about
a factor of 2 lower read noise (great for low light and astronomy
work). Sensor performance:
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...rmance.summary

Nikon only does as well as it
does because so many photographers had a large number of Nikon lenses as
the photo world began to change.

Except that many of those lenses are useless for sports and action since
they lack autofocus. Yet Nikon still has a good share of the market.

you ever use a Canon Camera for just a short while you will see what I
am talking about and you would never look back.

I laugh when I read stuff like this because I used to own Canon gear
with some nice L glass, and I sold it all to make the switch to Nikon.
The reason? Ergonomics.

I found the Nikon bodies have better control layout and are much more
comfortable to hold. I compared the Canon 30D and Nikon D80 models, and
opted to make the switch to Nikon rather than buy another Canon model.

Of course that's just me. Others may find the Canon better in their
hands, so handling is subjective.

"Read about their ring ultrasonic motor for rapid autofocus. Hold a
Nikon in your hands and then a Canon--and compare the rapidity of
autofocus with a long lens (a Canon white lens)--even to Nikon's own
version of the ring ultrasonic motor."

I think the person who said that is either a twit, or hasn't used any
recent lenses from Nikon.

I own the Nikon 18-70, 50 f/1.8, and 70-200 VR. They all focus equally
as fast as similar Canon models. I used the 70-200 VR on a D70s
side-by-side with Canons 70-200 f/4 L on an XT, so I have first-hand
experience and know that most of Nikons AF-S lenses are very fast and
very accurate.

This is hardly pro level equipment. Try using a 500 mm f/4 L IS
with 1D Mark IIN and 1Ds mark II and you'll likely come to
different conclusions. Even the same L lens on an XT will not
focus as fast as on a 1D body.

I went Canon 17+ years ago through dumb luck. When looking at the
new autofocus cameras, I assumed Nikon was for pros and I couldn't
afford it, so I went with Canon. I'm glad I did because I now
use a 1D Mark II and 500 mm f/4 L IS and other lenses for
wildlife. A lot of what I do would be very limiting and difficult
to impossible without IS in the super telephoto range. But I do hope
Nikon catches up in this area. For other types of photography, Nikon
equals or in some cases surpasses Canon. I would like to see Nikon
come out with VR super telephotos and full frame sensors.
The competition will benefit us all.


Nikon has other advantages too, but like most of the comments above, the
differences are small and it all comes down to what the individual user
needs or prefers.

I agree in some areas, but not concerning low light lowest noise applications,
and not in image stabilized super telephotos which is very important
for sports and wildlife action photography. And also not in full frame
high megapixel count DSLRs.

At the superbowl this Sunday, check out the photographers on the sidelines:
how many "white" telephoto lenses (Canon L) versus black (all other
manufacturers) will you see? Most will probably be using 1D Mark IIN
cameras and white L lenses, and is not due to marketing.

Roger

"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" writes:

But the difference in sports and wildlife action
photography between Nikon and Canon started before the digital era.

Indeed, it started all the way back in the manual focus era with Canon
emphasizing SLR's with shutter priority auto exposure when everyone
else was aperture priority.

On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 03:16:44 -0700, Roger N. Clark petulantly
(change username to rnclark) posited:

"Canon for some time has been the faster better sports equipment. Not
all just in auto focus but also frames per second and write speed to the
buffer is also faster. Read the features and compare. There are also
many more lenses in the Canon system.
. . .

Last time I counted (last fall), the difference was a few lenses...not
exactly a big difference. The only place where Nikon lacks really is the
tilt/shift model that Canon has. And when it comes to good quality
consumer lenses, Nikon is doing better than Canon right now.

The post was specifically about fast sports photo equipment. In the fast
action department, Canon certainly has the fastest pro digital camera

Nonsense. The first point referred to fast sports equipment.
Bill quoted this and did not disagree with respect to the claimed
speed advantage some Canon equipment may hold, and specifically
agreed with the OP's advice to "Read the features and compare".

In the very next sentence in the same first paragraph the OP said
that there are also "many more lenses in the Canon system". Bill
next quoted that part, and his response indicated that what the OP
had read was mistaken, and he explained why. Evidently this
bothered you enough to incorrectly complain that the OP's post was
"specifically about fast sports photo equipment". It's clear that
your Canon chauvinism hasn't yet abated. Should Bill have responded
to the OP's second point be starting another thread, or, as I
suspect, you'd rather have people only write those things that
support your preferences or biases?


In the digital era, there are two areas where Canon is out in front:
larger sensors and lower noise.

BZZZZT!!! Invalid response. "The post was specifically about
fast sports photo equipment." Or so you said. g

In the digital era, there are two areas where Canon is out in front:
larger sensors and lower noise.

BZZZZT!!! Invalid response. "The post was specifically about
fast sports photo equipment." Or so you said. g

Less noise will make it more pleasing to watch a picture taken at high ISO,
which in turn will give you a faster shutter speed as to capture fast-action
sport pictures!


Brian

Bill wrote:
"M-M" wrote in message
...

you ever use a Canon Camera for just a short while you will see what I
am talking about and you would never look back.

I laugh when I read stuff like this because I used to own Canon gear
with some nice L glass, and I sold it all to make the switch to Nikon.
The reason? Ergonomics.

I found the Nikon bodies have better control layout and are much more
comfortable to hold. I compared the Canon 30D and Nikon D80 models, and
opted to make the switch to Nikon rather than buy another Canon model.

A friend shooting a Canon 5D professionally isn't ready to swap for my
Nikon D200 -- but he's been grousing about the Canon ergonomics forever
(he's had two or three Canon DSLR bodies), and thinks Nikon is MUCH
better in that regard.

ASAAR wrote:
On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 03:16:44 -0700, Roger N. Clark petulantly
(change username to rnclark) posited:

"Canon for some time has been the faster better sports equipment. Not
all just in auto focus but also frames per second and write speed to the
buffer is also faster. Read the features and compare. There are also
many more lenses in the Canon system.
. . .
Last time I counted (last fall), the difference was a few lenses...not
exactly a big difference. The only place where Nikon lacks really is the
tilt/shift model that Canon has. And when it comes to good quality
consumer lenses, Nikon is doing better than Canon right now.
The post was specifically about fast sports photo equipment. In the fast
action department, Canon certainly has the fastest pro digital camera

Nonsense. The first point referred to fast sports equipment.
Bill quoted this and did not disagree with respect to the claimed
speed advantage some Canon equipment may hold, and specifically
agreed with the OP's advice to "Read the features and compare".

In the very next sentence in the same first paragraph the OP said
that there are also "many more lenses in the Canon system". Bill
next quoted that part, and his response indicated that what the OP
had read was mistaken, and he explained why. Evidently this
bothered you enough to incorrectly complain that the OP's post was
"specifically about fast sports photo equipment". It's clear that
your Canon chauvinism hasn't yet abated. Should Bill have responded
to the OP's second point be starting another thread, or, as I
suspect, you'd rather have people only write those things that
support your preferences or biases?

See:
http://www.nikonimaging.com/global/p...lens/index.htm

http://www.usa.canon.com/html/eflens...eup/index.html

I counted 46 nikon versus 61 canon autofocus lenses. I would call
that significant: 1/3 more. More significant is lack of VR in the
supertelephoto range IMO. I do hope nikon comes out with VR in that
range soon. Canon certainly has more than just tilt-shift lenses over
nikon.

In the digital era, there are two areas where Canon is out in front:
larger sensors and lower noise.

BZZZZT!!! Invalid response. "The post was specifically about
fast sports photo equipment." Or so you said. g

Double BZZZZZT!! Action photography is all about speed. Cranking up the
ISO is often needed when light levels drop. Low noise sensors have the edge.
So do higher megapixel count large sensors: you don't have to enlarge
as much to get that large print, and that too helps with noise
perception in the final image.

Roger

On Thu, 1 Feb 2007 02:40:32 -0800, Toni Nikkanen wrote
(in article ):

"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" writes:

But the difference in sports and wildlife action
photography between Nikon and Canon started before the digital era.

Indeed, it started all the way back in the manual focus era with Canon
emphasizing SLR's with shutter priority auto exposure when everyone
else was aperture priority.

Actually, Yashica beat Canon to that...

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

On Feb 1, 1:30 am, "Bill" wrote: brevity snip
Except that many of those lenses are useless for sports and action since
they lack autofocus.

Hmmm... ever seen an "NFL Films" production...?
-----

- gpsman

In article ,
Toni Nikkanen wrote:
"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" writes:

But the difference in sports and wildlife action
photography between Nikon and Canon started before the digital era.

Indeed, it started all the way back in the manual focus era with Canon
emphasizing SLR's with shutter priority auto exposure when everyone
else was aperture priority.

Funny, Nikon's first auto-exposure system (introduced in 1973) was shutter
priority. Just like Nikon's first AF system had the AF motor in the lens.

(As far as I know I have never used shutter priority, but I have to admit that
the got my first camera with that feature only a couple of years ago).


--
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