 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / July 2005Mamiya reviewer takes swipe at Canon
From: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=14061752 The ZD offers sensitivities from ISO 50 to 400. The sensor seems to be sensitive to color noise, but with a program such as Noise Ninja can easily cleaned up. I therefore vote for 800 and 1600 ISO as well, preferably without the overdone smoothing which Canon uses to achieve "low-noise" at high ISOs. > From: > http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=14061752 [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > preferably without the overdone smoothing which Canon uses to achieve > "low-noise" at high ISOs. It's well known amongst Professionals that Canon's high ISO-low noise performance is software enhanced and no better than Nikon, Sony or Olympus. I have many times commented that I can enlarge high noise Nikon files with more detail than Canon files. Douglas >> From: >> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=14061752 [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >Olympus. I have many times commented that I can enlarge high noise Nikon >files with more detail than Canon files. Indeed so. The 6 MP files from the Nikon D70 have more usable detail than the 8 MP files from the Canon EOS 350D and 20D. Tony Polson babbles: >>It's well known amongst Professionals that Canon's high ISO-low noise >>performance is software enhanced and no better than Nikon, Sony or [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Indeed so. The 6 MP files from the Nikon D70 have more usable detail > than the 8 MP files from the Canon EOS 350D and 20D. Even if "Ryadia's" claims are true, your statement is still a non sequitur. > Tony Polson babbles: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Even if "Ryadia's" claims are true, your statement is still a non > sequitur. I have no idea if the claim is true -- I own *none* of the three cameras in question. However, the statement is certainly not a non-sequitur. You're making the common mistake of confusing nominal image size (megapixels) with actual resolution (ability to capture detail in the scene).  SignatureDavid Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/> RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/> Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/> Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/> > It's well known amongst Professionals that Canon's high ISO-low noise > performance is software enhanced and no better than Nikon, Sony or > Olympus. That must explain blatantly high Canon:Nikon, Canon:Sony, and Canon:Olympus ratios I observe in professional circles. Yes. What other explanation could there be for this? Canon is "no better" thus all these professionals are buying Canon. > I have many times commented that I can enlarge high noise Nikon > files with more detail than Canon files. Well, I guess that settles it. What more proof do we need? Just out of curiosity, how many times did you have to "comment" on this before it became true? LOL > > It's well known amongst Professionals that Canon's high ISO-low noise > > performance is software enhanced and no better than Nikon, Sony or [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > of curiosity, how many times did you have to "comment" on this before > it became true? > LOL > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >>of curiosity, how many times did you have to "comment" on this before >>it became true? Feeling like you do about reality... Maybe playing with razor blades with your eyes closed might not be such a bad idea. Douglas >> It's well known amongst Professionals that Canon's high ISO-low noise >> performance is software enhanced and no better than Nikon, Sony or >> Olympus. > > That must explain blatantly high Canon:Nikon, Canon:Sony, and > Canon:Olympus ratios I observe in professional circles. Because they already own lenses or their boss does. If you have access to a canon 300 F2.8 you can use for free, why would you buy a Nikon that you'd have to buy this lens for? And you wonder why Canon has this "pro support"? So people like you will buy their products based on what you see someone else using. Seems to work. SignatureStacey >That must explain blatantly high Canon:Nikon, Canon:Sony, and >Canon:Olympus ratios I observe in professional circles. Yes. What >other explanation could there be for this? Canon is "no better" thus >all these professionals are buying Canon. All those professionals are buying Canon due to the huge discounts offered to professional photographers during the 1990's. During an internship at a daily newspaper I was using Nikon, as were one or two other photographers on staff. When I asked why everyone else was now using Canon (and some of the newspaper's own specialty lenses were Canon) I was told that Canon was making a concerted effort to take over the photojournalism market. I was told that the Canon lenses were, for them, at least 50% of the Nikon equivalent. It was a quite brilliant strategy. Look at the results now. All the gearheads and amateurs want Canon lenses because the pros use them, and the pros use them because they have built up their lens systems to a point where it would be unreasonable to ever switch. Nikon was definitely asleep at the switch during that time period. > >That must explain blatantly high Canon:Nikon, Canon:Sony, and > >Canon:Olympus ratios I observe in professional circles. Yes. What [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > a point where it would be unreasonable to ever switch. Nikon was > definitely asleep at the switch during that time period. Not only does Canon give price breaks to professionals they also have a terrific loner system. Certain photographers (there is a list somewhere) that are fairly high profile can get high end cameras and the big lenses, just by signing them out. Nikon used to do this but they are just too small of a company to do it at the rate Canon does. Canon has a booth at all high profile sports events just for loning lenses. Tom > Canon has a booth at all high profile sports events just for loning > lenses. So I wonder why a pro would use them.... Let's see, buy a $4000 lens or borrow one for free. Got to give it to canon, they know there are suckers who will buy a cheap consumer model just because they saw a pro using one of their products, so they believe the cheap consumer one must be just as good. Same morons who would go buy a new chevy because they saw one win the last nascar race. :-) SignatureStacey > Not only does Canon give price breaks to professionals they also have a > terrific loner system. Certain photographers (there is a list > somewhere) that are fairly high profile can get high end cameras and > the big lenses, just by signing them out. For the professional who prefers to work solo... SignatureJohn McWilliams >> It's well known amongst Professionals that Canon's high ISO-low noise >> performance is software enhanced and no better than Nikon, Sony or [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > other explanation could there be for this? Canon is "no better" thus > all these professionals are buying Canon. Using your logic (popularity = superiority), Ford MUST be better than Ferrari. I could work just fine with Nikon or Canon, but your argument is irrelevant to the assertion made by the other poster. There could be any number of reasons for Canon's current popularity (price, pro services, promotions, more and cheaper high speed telephoto lenses, ???) that have nothing to do with product quality. Heck, if Canon was "no worse" than Nikon but 15% cheaper, what do you think pros would be using? > Heck, if > Canon was "no worse" than Nikon but 15% cheaper, what do you think pros > would be using? Or if Canon gave a STEEP discount to pro's (which they have) which would they buy? Like someone else said, great advertising because there are thousands (millions?) of "wannabe's" who will buy a product just because they see a pro using them. You think Tiger wins because he uses Nike clubs? He wins in SPITE of using them! You think the autolite plugs John Force uses are the same as the ones you buy at autozone? Yea right... SignatureStacey >> Heck, if >> Canon was "no worse" than Nikon but 15% cheaper, what do you think pros [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > He wins in SPITE of using them! You think the autolite plugs John Force > uses are the same as the ones you buy at autozone? Yea right... Stacey- I thought something like that must have happened (Canon has been trying to break Nikon's stranglehold on the pro market since they (Canon) brought out their original F-1). I've been happy with my Nikons since 1973. About the biggest difference I see between the two is: 1) Nikon advantage in the lens line in shorter focal lengths (Canon doesn't even have a fisheye for dslrs - let alone one that can be transformed to rectilinear) 2) Canon advantage in the lens line in longer telephotos (and price of them) 3) Nikon advantage for a coherent sensor size strategy 4) Canon advantage if you absolutely want "full frame" sensor (and can afford it) 5) Nikon advantage in firmware stability before release (some Canons look like owning makes you a member of the "patch-of-the-week" club...sort of the ATI of cameras) George Maybe I shouldn't have been nice. > I thought something like that must have happened (Canon has been trying to > break > Nikon's stranglehold on the pro market since they (Canon) brought out their > original > F-1). What the hell do you expect? Canon is a _competitor_. Are you suggesting that Nikon would do no different? _IS_ doing no different? > I've been happy with my Nikons since 1973. Glad to hear it. > About the biggest difference I see between the two is: > > 1) Nikon advantage in the lens line in shorter focal lengths (Canon doesn't > even have a fisheye for dslrs Oh the pain! But then there is: http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/15-fisheye Still on sale at B&H even. > - let alone one that can be transformed to rectilinear) Yeah, just the other day I needed a fisheye lens that can be transformed to rectilinear. Whatever. > 2) Canon advantage in the lens line in longer telephotos (and price of them) > 3) Nikon advantage for a coherent sensor size strategy What the f.ck? I buy cameras, not strategies. I look through viewfinders, not at marketing propaganda. > 4) Canon advantage if you absolutely want "full frame" sensor (and can > afford it) [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > of > cameras) We all know that Canon outsells Nikon, so it follows that Canon is out-used by Nikon too. Please get back to us with a detailed analysis that factors out this variable. Even if you do demonstrate Canon can't write code, who cares? The problems are fixed, and for free. This is called "service", is it not? "Nikon is better because Canon services their equipment, sometimes for free." HA HA HA. In the end, your list is extremely strange in that areas where Canon truly is deficient, and Nikon much better, are not even mentioned at all. 1973 you say? > Maybe I shouldn't have been nice. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > What the hell do you expect? Canon is a _competitor_. Are you > suggesting that Nikon would do no different? _IS_ doing no different? Where did you read that I "expected" differently? It only took 'em 30+ years to BUY their way into a larger marketshare. Who's more profitable? Who knows, as both companies are involved in various areas and the info isn't available. BTW, you obviously didn't read what I wrote...I said that I'd be able to work just fine with either brand...my preference went to Nikon on two counts: I already owned the lenses and I shoot more with wider lenses than telephotos. If I'd started with Canon as my first camera and wished to stick with the brand I'd have sold off my FL lenses to buy FD lenses, then sold them off to buy their AF lenses. >> I've been happy with my Nikons since 1973. > > Glad to hear it. They've been 100% reliable to date...none of my Nikon equipment has EVER failed. 14 lenses and 6 bodies over 32 years...all still working fine...all functions and features. >> About the biggest difference I see between the two is: >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Still on sale at B&H even. That's nice but it isn't a fisheye on their digital cameras (except the EOS-1 DS). On their other DSLRs it is just a superwide with barrel distortion. >> - let alone one that can be transformed to rectilinear) > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > What the f.ck? I buy cameras, not strategies. I look through > viewfinders, not at marketing propaganda. Do you just own one lens and one body? If you buy a series of lenses to cover a range of focal lengths (read: FOV) that you wish...it'd sure be handy to not have to worry about which multiplication factor each given body's sensor gives you. Of course, if you really like math, you CAN turn this into an advantage (of sorts). BTW, impressive vocabulary! >> 4) Canon advantage if you absolutely want "full frame" sensor (and can >> afford it) [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > called "service", is it not? "Nikon is better because Canon services > their equipment, sometimes for free." HA HA HA. So, has Canon upgraded your dRebel features to dRebel XT for free? Nikon has done that for my D70 and it is rather nice. How nice that Canon sometimes fixes stuff for free...I really couldn't tell you if Nikon does that because, as I said earlier, none of my 6 Nikon bodies or 14 Nikon lenses has ever needed service...not even my 32 year old Nikon FTn (which I do still use). > In the end, your list is extremely strange in that areas where Canon > truly is deficient, and Nikon much better, are not even mentioned at > all. > > 1973 you say? MY posting wasn't intended to be a Canon/Nikon brand war (I do own some Canon stuff too...just not SLR/dSLR cameras). BTW, I wouldn't go around saying "Canon truly deficient" and "Nikon much better" if I were you...or Canon might stop fixing your stuff for you. > Using your logic (popularity = superiority), Ford MUST be better than > Ferrari. I can't recall if I have ever spoken with you before, and it's very hot today so I don't feel like googling up an answer. So I'll be nice: Shove your misrepresentations from whence they came. Or, failing that, please feel free to point out where I equated popularity with superiority. What I did say (sarcastically) was that Canon is popular _because_ it is, arguably, _superior_. That is to say: it is not "no better" -- it _IS_ better. If, in addition to this, Canon was offering their _superior_ gear at lower prices, offering better service for their _superior_ equipment, or lending out their _superior_ stuff under favourable conditions to better known photographers, or whatever, I may indeed agree any of, or all of, this could make the product even _more_ popular. Not my problem though: it is the Nikon Nutcase position that Canon's success can be attributed _only_ to their marketing department. (One wonders what these nitwits were bellowing about a some time ago when Nikon, arguable superior at the time, was ascendent. Surely it wasn't their amazing marketing skills?) > I can't recall if I have ever spoken with you before, and it's very hot > today so I don't feel like googling up an answer. So I'll be nice: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > arguable superior at the time, was ascendent. Surely it wasn't their > amazing marketing skills?) How do you pronounce your name? I hate having a conversation with alphabet souper's namesake. Douglas >That must explain blatantly high Canon:Nikon, Canon:Sony, and Professionals buy Canon over Nikon for several reasons, the lower noise of the Canon sensor being one of them. However I don't believe that the lower noise at higher ISOs is the major reason. The first reason is that Canon has had professional models available for a lot longer, so naturally Canon has a much larger market share. After that, the availability of larger sensors on the Canon's, mean more lens choices, especially at the wider angles. You can read what professionals look for over at: "http://nordicgroup.us/digicam/dslrcriteria/professional.html" > You can read what professionals look for over at: > > "http://nordicgroup.us/digicam/dslrcriteria/professional.html" Hmmm, I disagree with; "Communications High Speed Communications (IEEE 1394 or USB 2.0) During a professional shoot, the professional may want to download the contents of the memory card without removing it. A high speed serial link is very important. All newer professional models include high speed communications." Plugging the camera in to download slows workflow, I can switch cards and keep shooting while my card is read by a USB 2.0 card reader. I can't think of any compelling reason to download from the camera. >>That must explain blatantly high Canon:Nikon, Canon:Sony, and > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >"http://nordicgroup.us/digicam/dslrcriteria/professional.html" There is something to be said for "buying" a market. AMD is now suing Intel for doing just that. I'm surprised Nikon hasn't sued Canon. -Rich > There is something to be said for "buying" a market. > AMD is now suing Intel for doing just that. I'm surprised It is quite different. No one has suggested that Canon has induced resellers to not carry Nikon products, in an effort to boost market share. What Intel does is to induce computer manufacturers to not use products by AMD (as well as others in the past, such as IIT, Cyrix, Rise, Transmeta, etc). They do this with both a carrot and a stick. The carrot is MDF (marketing development funds), and the stick is the threat of reduced supply of limited availability components, and the threat of lack of access to advance information on new products (yellow books). I.e. read "http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:FJzvn_KZYgAJ:www.theregister.co.uk/2000/11/ 01/ibm_knifes_crusoe_thinkpad/+transmeta+ipo+ibm+intel&hl=en" The last minute decision by IBM to not bring this platform to market, even though it was all set for production, was a direct result of the type of thing that AMD is suing about. However, it is not clear that giving a manufacturer MDF in order for it to not use a competitor's product, is illegal. >The first reason is >that Canon has had professional models available for a lot longer, so [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >"http://nordicgroup.us/digicam/dslrcriteria/professional.html" Typical made up bull again. You can't just keep making this stuff up Steve. Eventually people call you on it. That first sentence is just pure bull. If that was the case why doesn't Kodak have the largest market share? I was using professional Kodak cameras before Canon or Nikon had one built. I believe the Nikon D1 was out at least 6 months before the D30 if I'm not mistaken...and I still know a someone who was using it for professional work up to last fall. What is your reference for your criteria? Oh wait, it's the same as the rest of your website, snippets of stuff from different websites mixed with a healthy dose of personal opinion. I don't believe you even are a professional photographer Steve, so that makes half of the stuff on your website invalid. If you were a pro you would understand that the camera is only a tool. The proper tool for one job is not the proper tool for another. The mind of the photographer is what creates the image. >>The first reason is >>that Canon has had professional models available for a lot longer, so [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >the proper tool for another. The mind of the photographer is what >creates the image. Sigma has Preddy. Canon has Scharf. ;-) > If that was the case why doesn't Kodak have the largest market share? The Kodak professional cameras were poor and expensive. Being first to market isn't enough, if the products are both very expensive, and not very good. > You can read what professionals look for over at: And what are your qualifications for making these claims? SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.