 |
 | 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 2005This is my impression (Canon and Nikon)
This is not a troll. I dislike the idea of Nikon reduced to a "stuggling" company, being punished for trying to maintain quality. It smacks of "Walmartism" on the part of the American consumer. And I don't have the figures to prove it, but it seems that Canon's base lenses are inferior to just about every camera maker (of DSLRs) out there. It seems like you have to jump to "Ls" in order to get a really good image. Whats even more galling is that they produce outstanding sensors in cheap cameras and yet pair them with junk optics, unless you are smart enough or have enough money to correct this. I've never heard anyone criticize Nikon or even Pentax's lenses like I have for Canon. So why does Canon stratify their lens classes so much? Is it to maintain a profit margin and if they sell some dog zooms to to unwashed, so what? I used to look on Nikon as the God of camera brands. Now I see them as the underdog, with the better product, a company concerned solely with quality, no matter what level it's aimed at. -Rich > This is not a troll. I dislike the idea of Nikon reduced > to a "stuggling" company, being punished for trying to [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > a company concerned solely with quality, no matter what level > it's aimed at. Once again you've displayed your level of retardation. I have two consumer-grade Canon lenses - can't afford the "L" glass right now. I have 16x20s and 20x24s printed from them (by a professional lab) which look great. Fact is, Nikon hasn't kept up with the marketplace. They're still making D100s for chrissake. >> This is not a troll. I dislike the idea of Nikon reduced >> to a "stuggling" company, being punished for trying to [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >right now. I have 16x20s and 20x24s printed from them (by a >professional lab) which look great. Do you know of any "amateur labs?" >Fact is, Nikon hasn't kept up with the marketplace. They're still >making D100s for chrissake. Isn't Canon still making the Rebel? -Rich > Do you know of any "amateur labs?" They're all over the place. > >Fact is, Nikon hasn't kept up with the marketplace. They're still > >making D100s for chrissake. > > Isn't Canon still making the Rebel? The Rebel uses current technology, the D100 does not. >>> This is not a troll. I dislike the idea of Nikon reduced >>> to a "stuggling" company, being punished for trying to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >>> camera maker (of DSLRs) out there. It seems like you have >>> to jump to "Ls" in order to get a really good image. Look here: http://www.photodo.com/nav/prodindex.html >>> Whats even more galling is that they produce outstanding >>> sensors in cheap cameras and yet pair them with junk optics, The 17-85 f4-5.6 IS USM is hardly "junk optics." And it is paired with the 20D in kit form. >>> unless you are smart enough or have enough money to correct this. >>> I've never heard anyone criticize Nikon or even Pentax's >>> lenses like I have for Canon. So why does Canon stratify >>> their lens classes so much? Is it to maintain a profit margin >>> and if they sell some dog zooms to to unwashed, so what? >>> I used to look on Nikon as the God of camera brands. That being said, Canon has always been more consumer oriented than Nikon, and, thus, aimed at a lower common denominator. >>> Now I see them as the underdog, with the better product, Not better, different, and differently aimed. >>> a company concerned solely with quality, no matter what level >>> it's aimed at. Then buy a Nikon. The real difference between product is so slight as to make any argument based on reality rather moot. Most of the condemnation you hear of Canon optics comes from non Canon users. Yes, the 18-55 is a less than stellar performer. It costs much less than the Nikon equivalent and gives reasonably decent images: http://www.shutterspeedway.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?user=SkipM&gallery=My%2020D%2 0images/Day%20at%20the%20Races&picture=26 The majority of lenses in the non "L" category are excellent, from the 85mm f1.8, 100mm f2 and 50mm f1.4 to the 28-135mm f3.5-5.6 IS USM. I'm sure that Nikon makes just as good a bunch of lenses, and anything I say is not meant to be construed as criticism of that line, or any other. Like Randall, I have several images shot on film and digital with the 28-135 and enlarged to 20x24 and 24x36 that are excellent. >>I have two consumer-grade Canon lenses - can't afford the "L" glass >>right now. I have 16x20s and 20x24s printed from them (by a >>professional lab) which look great. > > Do you know of any "amateur labs?" Ritz Camera and Walmart are examples of "amateur labs." >>Fact is, Nikon hasn't kept up with the marketplace. They're still >>making D100s for chrissake. > > Isn't Canon still making the Rebel? Which came out long after the D100 did, and has been supplanted by the Rebel XT.  SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com > Like Randall, I have several images shot on film and digital with the > 28-135 and enlarged to 20x24 and 24x36 that are excellent. You actually think anyone with any 35mm film or digital camera can make "excellent" 24X36" prints from those formats? You must have a -really- low threshold of what comprizes excellent. IMHO those sizes are pushing what 6X7 medium format can deliver quality prints from. SignatureStacey >>Like Randall, I have several images shot on film and digital with the >>28-135 and enlarged to 20x24 and 24x36 that are excellent. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > threshold of what comprizes excellent. IMHO those sizes are pushing what > 6X7 medium format can deliver quality prints from. careful... Beethoven was still pretty good at his art when he was deaf. and 20x24 could be cm - we're not all yanks posting in here. :-) > Beethoven was still pretty good at his art when he was deaf. > and 20x24 could be cm - we're not all yanks posting in here. No, it's inches. These are standard photographic sizes. Maybe you should consider a change of address. >> Like Randall, I have several images shot on film and digital with the >> 28-135 and enlarged to 20x24 and 24x36 that are excellent. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > threshold of what comprizes excellent. IMHO those sizes are pushing what > 6X7 medium format can deliver quality prints from. Stacey, Have you done it? I have. Epson 7600. Nikon D70. Outstanding. Tom >> Like Randall, I have several images shot on film and digital with the >> 28-135 and enlarged to 20x24 and 24x36 that are excellent. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > threshold of what comprizes excellent. IMHO those sizes are pushing what > 6X7 medium format can deliver quality prints from. Stacey, you know me better than that! I wouldn't say it if I didn't mean it. Yes, it is possible, with the right film, or the right sensor. I have them sitting in my family room, right now. The one on film was shot with the last roll of Ektar 25, or actually Royal Gold 25 that I had. The other was just shot a couple of weeks ago, at a wedding, ISO 100, on a tripod. I'm also not talking about getting within inches of the image, either. But from a normal viewing distance of 4-6', they are, indeed, excellent. True, they don't have the tonal transitions that MF, especially 6x7, has. SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com >Fact is, Nikon hasn't kept up with the marketplace. They're still >making D100s for chrissake. No, they are not! The D100 hasn't been made for over a year. It is just taking a long time to sell off the remaining stocks - not surprising, given that the cheaper D70 is a far better camera. The D100 replacement will be Nikon's next DSLR. Rich, You could look at it like this: Canon is making high quality cameras (ex Canons DSLR always did ISO 100 where Nikons best was ISO 200), and low cost lenses so newbies can enter the photography world. And then upgrade when they find it worth it. Like Randall said some of there cheap lenses are actually very good, 28-105 is excellent for its price and so is the 50mm f/1.8 (how can you beat a $70 lens?). Canon 100mm Macro is a top dollar lens for not top dollar price (at least when compared to the L series prices). Just an idea to think about. "RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message news:2ljmc1p2i9mhi76u7vn29otk26nq6ea4dq@ 4ax.com... > This is not a troll. I dislike the idea of Nikon reduced > to a "stuggling" company, being punished for trying to [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > it's aimed at. > -Rich > Rich, > You could look at it like this: [quoted text clipped - 95 lines] > http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups > ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- The 70-200/4L is priced similar to the 100mm macro. And 17-40/4L just a tad more than 70-200/4L. And the Canon 300/4L IS is priced similar to Nikon 300/4 without VR. >Rich, >You could look at it like this: >Canon is making high quality cameras (ex >Canons DSLR always did ISO 100 where >Nikons best was ISO 200), Yeah, but what do those numbers really mean? If we take a picture of the same grey card with manual settings on both at "ISO 200", one could have almost a stop more headroom than the other in the RAW data. You don't know what these numbers really mean until you test them. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< > And I don't have the figures to prove it, but it seems > that Canon's base lenses are inferior to just about every > camera maker (of DSLRs) out there. It seems like you have > to jump to "Ls" in order to get a really good image. Which lenses did you test (and on which body) to come to that conclusion ? Or are you (as I suspect), just talking absolute bollocks ? |
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.