Nikon vs Canon and the whole dSLR thing

Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:

The D40(x) is designated to a certain targeted audience that will most
likely never remove the AF-S kit lens

This is demonstrably untrue. First of all, even the target audience for
the low end D-SLRs usually buy one telephoto lens to augment the kit
lens. In the case of the D40x, the most popular kit is the one that
includes the D40X body, 18-55 lens and 55-200 lens (along with a 1GB SD
card and a case).

It's no different than in the days of film SLRs. Most users would always
go and buy at least one telephoto lens, often a cheap after-market lens
from Tokina or Quantaray.

so all of this talk about using older lenses is a moot point.

Whoever talked about using older lenses? Anyone with older lenses is
already not going to consider the D40/D40x, it's not even in the equation.

In article , SMS
wrote:

Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:

The D40(x) is designated to a certain targeted audience that will most
likely never remove the AF-S kit lens

This is demonstrably untrue. First of all, even the target audience for
the low end D-SLRs usually buy one telephoto lens to augment the kit
lens. In the case of the D40x, the most popular kit is the one that
includes the D40X body, 18-55 lens and 55-200 lens (along with a 1GB SD
card and a case).

it's definitely true. other than hobbyists and pros, most people i
know who have an slr own only one lens, perhaps two lenses at the most.
they simply *aren't* into photography all that much, and a kit lens is
more than adequate for family and tourist types of pictures. if they
have kids, they might possibly get a telephoto lens for sports. and
then they're done buying camera equippment.

It's no different than in the days of film SLRs. Most users would always
go and buy at least one telephoto lens, often a cheap after-market lens
from Tokina or Quantaray.

in the days of film slrs, the 'kit lens' was a 50mm and the need for
something wider or longer was more important. now, the kit lens is
often an 18-55, with 18-70, 18-135 and even 18-200 being options.
there is even an 18-250 available. one lens *can* do it all.

so all of this talk about using older lenses is a moot point.

Whoever talked about using older lenses? Anyone with older lenses is
already not going to consider the D40/D40x, it's not even in the equation.

we have a winner.

nospam wrote:

Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:
Whoever talked about using older lenses? Anyone with older lenses is
already not going to consider the D40/D40x, it's not even in the equation.

we have a winner.

No, she insists she doesn't have one...oh wait, you said "winner."

In article , SMS
wrote:

Nikon seems to finally be getting its act together. The D3 is a good
start, but it's rather low resolution for a full frame professional
camera. Canon keeps forcing Nikon to play catch up on the pro side. For
years Nikon had no full frame at all. Now they have a $5000 12 megapixel
D3 while Canon has the 21 megapixel EOS-1Ds Mark III, albeit at a higher
price.

the d3 is up against the 1d mark iii, not the 1ds mark iii. there is
speculation that nikon will be adding a higher megapixel count camera
some time next year, but realistically, canon sells so very few 1ds
cameras that it isn't a big deal if nikon doesn't bother with it.

The other area where Nikon is playing catch-up is in lenses, but Nikon
seems content to cede the entire sports photography market to Canon.
Look at the pros at sporting events, it's a sea of big white lenses.
Again, Canon invested in Flourite technology, while Nikon uses ED glass
which is less sharp and has more chromatic aberration. Nikon also still
has many gaps in its lens line, especially at the amateur end. At the
professional end, some lenses aren't possible due to the limitations of
the Nikon mount.

why do you keep spouting this? there is *no* limitation with the nikon
mount that precludes making exotic lenses. nikon chooses not to bother
because they wouldn't sell that many and there's really not a lot of
point in bothering.

furthermore, flourite is fragile; nikon's ed glass is comparable and
without the drawbacks of flourite. lab tests show nikon's high end
lenses to be as good or better than canon.

as for gaps, where's canon's 18-200is ? 14-24 f/2.8 ? 10.5mm fisheye?
105mm vr macro?

"Rita Ä Berkowitz" ritaberk2O04 @aol.com wrote in message
...

And still Canon shooters will never be able to experience what it is like
to
shoot at 14mm with a real lens. Looks like Canon blew it again. So sad.

I must admit, you probably are an expert at blowing, so you must know...

"SMS" wrote in message
...
John Rethorst wrote:

Racing improves the breed. The competition between Canon and Nikon is a
gift for everyone who likes photography.

Where Canon is ahead of Nikon is at the high end (it _was_ way ahead prior
to the release of the Nikon D3). This happened because Canon invested
heavily in CMOS sensor technology, while Nikon was content to use CCD
sensors from Sony and its own LBCAST sensors.

Nikon seems to finally be getting its act together. The D3 is a good
start, but it's rather low resolution for a full frame professional
camera. Canon keeps forcing Nikon to play catch up on the pro side. For
years Nikon had no full frame at all. Now they have a $5000 12 megapixel
D3 while Canon has the 21 megapixel EOS-1Ds Mark III, albeit at a higher
price.

The other area where Nikon is playing catch-up is in lenses, but Nikon
seems content to cede the entire sports photography market to Canon. Look
at the pros at sporting events, it's a sea of big white lenses. Again,
Canon invested in Flourite technology, while Nikon uses ED glass which is
less sharp and has more chromatic aberration. Nikon also still has many
gaps in its lens line, especially at the amateur end. At the professional
end, some lenses aren't possible due to the limitations of the Nikon
mount.

Boy you don´t give a rats ass about facts, do you? Nikon had the first DSLR
after that, it took Canon 2 years to catch up with their first one.
Canon lenses suck! NASA backs me up with this!
The improvements of the D3 is not just a full frame sensor. It smokes the
markIII on every detail except the 21 MP. BIG deal! Nobody ever will need
that, except for very high resolution posters. Hardly for sports or other
pictures. The D3 is almost 2x as fast, has a ISO sensitivity that makes
Canon cry and run for cover, 51 pint autofocus with auto tracking versus a
miserable 11 point of the MarkIII.

The other introduction is even more ridiculous: the 40D (in a state of fear
named after the D40 of Nikon, to steal a few non suspecting customers
away?). It offers next to nothing new compared with the 400D. Not even 5
more pixels. Like bringing out a "new" car with chrome doorhandles only as
improvement. The D300 offers almost all the news of the D3 except the full
frame sensor and a few other things. Also 12 MP, 51 autofocus points and
auto tracking. Plus the LCD screen is 920.000 by 3", while Canon just blew
the old one up a little: Instead of 2,5" it´s 3" but still with the same
230.000 pixels, so you don´t see more detail, just bigger pixels! What a
hoax!

All Canon morons keep raving abouyt the SPORTS journalists who use Canon
lenses. Ofcourse! They are cheap and they don´t need to be very precise. A
newspaper picture has a resolution that´s less then you monitor. Besides,
those pictures don´t pay crap so they can´t aford Nikon equipment.
In law enforcement and many other fields that require more precision, Nikon
rules. Look at Cops...
Canon is still scratching it´s head why they can´t make a flash system equal
to Nikon´s.

Canon just makes me smile with pity. They are already dead, they just don´t
now it yet.

In article , Rita Ä Berkowitz
@aol.com wrote:

nospam wrote:

as for gaps, where's canon's 18-200is ? 14-24 f/2.8 ? 10.5mm
fisheye? 105mm vr macro?

In Canon's defense I must say that putting VR on a macro lens is blatantly
stupid and I'm sure they won't make the same mistake Nikon made. While I
feel the 105/2.8 VR is one sweet lens I can safely say that VR does
absolutely nothing useful for 1:1 macro.

although a lot of macro work is on a tripod where vr would be a waste,
there are definitely situations in which a stabilized macro lens can be
useful.

nospam wrote:
In article , SMS
wrote:

Nikon seems to finally be getting its act together. The D3 is a good
start, but it's rather low resolution for a full frame professional
camera. Canon keeps forcing Nikon to play catch up on the pro side. For
years Nikon had no full frame at all. Now they have a $5000 12 megapixel
D3 while Canon has the 21 megapixel EOS-1Ds Mark III, albeit at a higher
price.

the d3 is up against the 1d mark iii, not the 1ds mark iii. there is
speculation that nikon will be adding a higher megapixel count camera
some time next year, but realistically, canon sells so very few 1ds
cameras that it isn't a big deal if nikon doesn't bother with it.

You don't understand why it's important that they "bother" with it. The
market is such that the buyer looks not just at what their immediate
needs and budget allow for, but they look at what's available just in
case they ever decide to upgrade their SLR body. It's pretty common to
upgrade the body but keep the lenses, flash, etc.

Nikon lost a huge number of pros to Canon over the past several years
because of the lack of a full frame professional camera. Now that they
finally came out with a full frame model, after years of anticipation by
the pros, they need to make a committment to continue this development
of the pros won't come back.

why do you keep spouting this? there is *no* limitation with the nikon
mount that precludes making exotic lenses. nikon chooses not to bother
because they wouldn't sell that many and there's really not a lot of
point in bothering.

As I explained, the diameter of the lens mount prevents Nikon from
producing some lenses. They chose not to go to an updated lens mount
which is fine, but they have to live with that decision.

furthermore, flourite is fragile; nikon's ed glass is comparable and
without the drawbacks of flourite. lab tests show nikon's high end
lenses to be as good or better than canon.

The ED glass is less sharp and has more chromatic aberration. Nikon
makes all sorts of silly excuses as to why they have nothing to compete
against the BWLs, but no one falls for them (at least not many people
apparently).

as for gaps, where's canon's 18-200is ? 14-24 f/2.8 ? 10.5mm fisheye?
105mm vr macro?

An 18-200 IS would be nice, but that's a compromise lens that is best
avoided except by rank amateurs. The reviews give this lens a resounding
'good enough for the target market' with warnings about the construction
quality and chromatic aberration at the wide end. You're better off with
two lenses to cover this range, though I understand the appeal of being
able to buy a single lens that covers such a wide range.

SMS wrote:

An 18-200 IS would be nice, but that's a compromise lens that is best
avoided except by rank amateurs. The reviews give this lens a resounding
'good enough for the target market' with warnings about the construction
quality and chromatic aberration at the wide end. You're better off with
two lenses to cover this range, though I understand the appeal of being
able to buy a single lens that covers such a wide range.

I should have also pointed out _why_ Canon seems to have gaps in its
lens line like the 18-200 IS. Canon is more of an engineering based
company. They look at not whether its possible to build something, but
whether or not what they build will be a top quality product. They don't
de-feature their lower end products just to increase market
segementation. They like to design their own key components such as
sensors, even though the cost of "building" verss "buying" might not
make economic sense.

Nikon is more of a marketing based company. It took Canon's success in
higher end D-SLRs to force Nikon to get their act together in terms of
larger sensors. Nikon could go after the higher end lens market and come
out with a line of flourite lenses, but they realize that their market
share would take decades to build up because of the installed base that
Canon enjoys. Nikon is very into segmenting their models by features
other than just the sensor size and resolution, forcing buyers to move
up the product line to get features that Canon includes in every model.
This may make marketing sense.

What's really amazing is how Nikon blew their lead. Canon got a very
late start in digital, but in a few short years they made a remarkable
come back to dominate the digital market, leading both in overall sales
and in D-SLR sales. Nikon has fallen to sixth place in overall sales,
eclipsed by even Samsung. Their market share in D-SLRs actually fell in
2006, though Canon's fell as well, as other manufacturers entered the
segment. This is all for 2006. I think Nikon will increase their market
share for 2007 because they have an entry-level model at a very low
price point, something that Canon lacks.

On Oct 9, 11:02 pm, SMS wrote:


As I explained, the diameter of the lens mount prevents Nikon from
producing some lenses. They chose not to go to an updated lens mount
which is fine, but they have to live with that decision.

Well, a rough measurement of the mount and the flange-sensor distance
seems to indicate that around f/1 should be the limit. f/1.2 lenses in
fact exist, so I imagine the limit is between f/1.2 and f/1. I'm sure
this influences a huge number of people to switch, as you've said.



furthermore, flourite is fragile; nikon's ed glass is comparable and
without the drawbacks of flourite. lab tests show nikon's high end
lenses to be as good or better than canon.

The ED glass is less sharp and has more chromatic aberration.

Methinks you've spent too long looking at brochures.