 |
 | 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 / August 2005Canon kit lens review critiques show a pattern
If the review wasn't completely positive, the rejoinders from the Canonites are: -You didn't do it right! -You got a bad lens sample! -You don't know how to interpret the results! It reminds me of earth warming science, if the data doesn't support the pre-determined conclusion, it's disgarded or ridiculed. What I do like are the qualifiers; -"I only moved up to better glass because I needed more zoom range." Unspoken: "Otherwise, I'd still be forced to use that piece of crap." and the MAIN one, -"For $100, it's a good lens" or something along that line. Uh, no, for $100 it is NOT a good lens. Other companies make much better ones for that amount of money. I've tried this lens three times in different situations and in each case, it's been disappointing. I might see it as a marginally-acceptable first lens to be bought with a Rebel XT, to tide you over until you get a decent lens, but it hobbles what are great cameras and sensors. You know what the funny thing is? Even the makers of "Lensbabies" that silly effects lens knew enough to replace the singlet in it after the first year with an achromatic doublet because even with a lens designed to blur and distort, there is a limit to the amount of image degradation that people will put up with. -Rich > and the MAIN one, > -"For $100, it's a good lens" or something along that line. Uh, no, > for $100 it is NOT a good lens. Other companies make much better ones > for that amount of money. Bullshit. Show the comparisons to other $100 zoom lenses. Greg >> and the MAIN one, >> -"For $100, it's a good lens" or something along that line. Uh, no, >> for $100 it is NOT a good lens. Other companies make much better ones >> for that amount of money. > > Bullshit. Show the comparisons to other $100 zoom lenses. Easy. Even DP review (a canon shill?) says it a piece of crap. :-) Check out the reviews of the 14-45 kit lens that comes on the E-300. It blows the canon lens into next week and is avalible for $100 over the body only price. For $200 you get this and the 40-150 which is equally good. http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympuse300/page19.asp The E-300's Kit lens performs quite well, exhibiting good sharpness at wide angle, a little softer at telephoto. Obviously it's a little soft at maximum aperture (almost all lenses are), but stopped down it produced good resolution. Note that the resolution bars are actually larger at 14 mm because of barrel distortion. http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos350d/page20.asp The Mark II lens appears to have had improvements made to corner sharpness at maximum aperture and light fall-off (vignetting) at maximum aperture. However it's performance at telephoto with smaller apertures is disappointing with noticeable softness and ghosting when compared to the older lens. The difficulty is that in Auto or Program AE the camera will tend to stop down in brighter light situations, if you're using the kit lens this could lead to soft looking images. My choice My personal favorite lens to use with the EOS 350D (Digital Rebel XT) would be the very good EF-S 17 - 85 mm F4.0 - F5.6 IS which provides big five times wide angle zoom and image stabilization, however at $600 it does push the initial price of a 350D kit to $1,500.  SignatureStacey >> Bullshit. Show the comparisons to other $100 zoom lenses. > >Easy. Even DP review (a canon shill?) says it a piece of crap. :-) You just shifted the argument to a point where you now need to show how DP Review is a Canon shill, if you expect to get back on the road to credibility. I couldn't find anything as clearly negative as you put it, in any of the EOS reviews. Show me the words "piece of crap" in this: "This lightweight 'consumer' lens performed remarkably well considering its relatively cheap price ($100 included with the EOS 300D). It's clearly a little soft at maximum aperture (almost all lenses are), but stopped down it produced good resolution at wide angle and average resolution at full telephoto. It's not going to break any resolution records but overall it's a useful, light and relatively good lens." >Check out the reviews of the 14-45 kit lens that comes on the E-300. It >blows the canon lens into next week and is avalible for $100 over the body >only price. For $200 you get this and the 40-150 which is equally good. > >http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympuse300/page19.asp So there are benefits to buying the Olympus system instead of Canon. Plus ça change... >The E-300's Kit lens performs quite well, exhibiting good sharpness at wide >angle, a little softer at telephoto. Obviously it's a little soft at >maximum aperture (almost all lenses are), but stopped down it produced good >resolution. Note that the resolution bars are actually larger at 14 mm >because of barrel distortion. Wow. Looks like DP has a template for reviews... >My personal favorite lens to use with the EOS 350D (Digital Rebel XT) would >be the very good EF-S 17 - 85 mm F4.0 - F5.6 IS which provides big five >times wide angle zoom and image stabilization, however at $600 it does push >the initial price of a 350D kit to $1,500. A vendor's $600 lens is better than their %80 lens. This isn't important, and it isn't going to persuade anyone to toss their 18-55 in the garbage bin. That's your goal, isn't it? Or do you just want to discorage people from buying Canon kits? Why? >>My personal favorite lens to use with the EOS 350D (Digital Rebel XT) >>would be the very good EF-S 17 - 85 mm F4.0 - F5.6 IS which provides big [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > bin. > That's your goal, isn't it? Actually that is the key quote. Looks like to me they are saying to get decent performance from this camera, you need something other than the included lens which makes it a $1500 kit. > Or do you just want to discorage people > from buying Canon kits? Nope, just so people understand when you compare the canon kit price with others, you're comparing apples and oranges. I doubt most people would be happy with a lens that only performs -decent- when stopped way down, kinda defeats the "low light performance" everyone brags about! SignatureStacey >>>My personal favorite lens to use with the EOS 350D (Digital Rebel XT) >>>would be the very good EF-S 17 - 85 mm F4.0 - F5.6 IS which provides big [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > happy with a lens that only performs -decent- when stopped way down, kinda > defeats the "low light performance" everyone brags about! I would be pretty worried about the barrel distortion of the 14mm end, yikky. >>>>My personal favorite lens to use with the EOS 350D (Digital Rebel XT) >>>>would be the very good EF-S 17 - 85 mm F4.0 - F5.6 IS which provides big [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >I would be pretty worried about the barrel distortion of the 14mm end, >yikky. I guess thats when the personal side of consideration about lenses comes into play. They have "X" dollars to work with. Canon decided to concentrate more on the geometry of the image, Olympus on resolution and sharpness. Which you pick as important is up to you since it's possible you can't have both, at that price point. -Rich <snip> > I would be pretty worried about the barrel distortion of the 14mm end, > yikky. Boy, I love it when these know-alls can't even get the basics right. What do you know first-hand about the 18-55 Canon lens, when you quote 14mm for the short end? Have you looked at the short end of the Nikon or any other kit lens for barrel distortion? I thought not. You're just running off at the mouth. FYI, *all* consumer/prosumer zooms show barrel distortion at the short end, and pincushion at the long end. Big deal. Software exists to correct the image to a high degree of accuracy, better even than the top zooms. Some cameras, I think the E-300, actually has distortion-correcting algorithms built-in to the camera firmware. Who knows what the Oly lenses would be like without that correction? </rant> Colin > Some cameras, I think the E-300, actually has > distortion-correcting algorithms built-in to the camera firmware. You think wrong. The extra cost studio software has this ability but it's not done in the camera. SignatureStacey >Nope, just so people understand when you compare the canon kit price with >others, you're comparing apples and oranges. I doubt most people would be >happy with a lens that only performs -decent- when stopped way down, kinda >defeats the "low light performance" everyone brags about! To put that another way, Canon DSLRs *need* to have good performance at high ISOs. That's because the 18-55mm EF kit lens needs to be stopped down to f/8 for its optical performance to reach "decent". ;-) >>Nope, just so people understand when you compare the canon kit price with >>others, you're comparing apples and oranges. I doubt most people would be [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > ;-) Yeah, because they don't make any lenses that perform better, nor do they make any f2.8 lenses. Sheesh. SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com > Yeah, because they don't make any lenses that perform better, nor do they > make any f2.8 lenses. Sure but how many people buying the rebel XT kit are going to buy a lens that costs as much as they just spent on the camera? Most of these kits are used by people who will rarely buy another lens. I think it's sad the review sites all seem to use the 50 f1.4 for the "test shots" rather than the lens that comes with the camera. SignatureStacey >> Yeah, because they don't make any lenses that perform better, nor do they >> make any f2.8 lenses. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > review sites all seem to use the 50 f1.4 for the "test shots" rather than > the lens that comes with the camera. Beside the point. Tony said the high ISO performance was a deliberate ploy to compensate for the "poor" performance of the lens. To address your "points," a lot of people will buy lenses that cost as much or more than the camera bodies. Buying a 2.8 lens isn't necessary, note that I said "lenses that perform better." Those lenses, including the 50mm f1.4 you mention, are available for considerably less than the cost of the XT body. If the review sites all used the kit lenses included with any of the cameras, that would be rather silly. First, it wouldn't show the potential of the camera, and, second, it would give the manufacturer that included a ringer or loss leader lens and advantage. Using a lens that is similar to lenses other mfrs. make is reasonable. SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com >> I think it's sad the >> review sites all seem to use the 50 f1.4 for the "test shots" rather than [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Beside the point. Tony said the high ISO performance was a deliberate > ploy to compensate for the "poor" performance of the lens. Not a ploy, it's needed for the camera to perform as well as other dSLR's unless you include a $$$ lens. > To address your "points," a lot of people will buy lenses that cost as > much > or more than the camera bodies. The stats on camera kit vs lens sales doesn't support this notion. > If the review sites all used the kit lenses included with any of the > cameras, that would be rather silly. Why? Because the canon dSLR's would have a poor showing if they did this? > First, it wouldn't show the > potential of the camera, and, second, it would give the manufacturer that > included a > ringer or loss leader lens and advantage. Yea, we shouldn't judge a camera by the lens... SignatureStacey >>> I think it's sad the >>> review sites all seem to use the 50 f1.4 for the "test shots" rather [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Why? Because the canon dSLR's would have a poor showing if they did this? Or any other camera, for that matter. >> First, it wouldn't show the >> potential of the camera, and, second, it would give the manufacturer that >> included a >> ringer or loss leader lens and advantage. > > Yea, we shouldn't judge a camera by the lens... Why would you judge a sensor's quality by using a less than optimal lens? Whether I was testing a Nikon, Oly, Canon, Pentax, or whatever, I'd try to use a lens that was the best possible. Why introduce a variable? That makes no sense at all. An entirely different question if you are testing kit lenses... SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com >>>> I think it's sad the >>>> review sites all seem to use the 50 f1.4 for the "test shots" rather [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >> Why? Because the canon dSLR's would have a poor showing if they did this? > Or any other camera, for that matter. Actually the olympus E300 kit lens performs quite well. >>> First, it wouldn't show the >>> potential of the camera, and, second, it would give the manufacturer [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Why would you judge a sensor's quality by using a less than optimal lens? Because it's what many people will end up using? > Whether I was testing a Nikon, Oly, Canon, Pentax, or whatever, I'd try to > use a lens that was the best possible. Why introduce a variable? That > makes no sense at all. > An entirely different question if you are testing kit lenses... Which these review sites rarely seem to do. SignatureStacey >>>>> I think it's sad the >>>>> review sites all seem to use the 50 f1.4 for the "test shots" rather [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >>> dSLR's >>> unless you include a $$$ lens. You can't have your cake and eat it, too. First you say that Canon's alleged agressive noise reduction cuts detail, then the lens cuts detail, then the lack of noise makes up for the poor resolution of the lens. Pick one, and get back to me. >>>> To address your "points," a lot of people will buy lenses that cost as >>>> much >>>> or more than the camera bodies. >>> >>> The stats on camera kit vs lens sales doesn't support this notion. Let's see those stats, Stace. Canon sells more lenses than cameras. >>>> If the review sites all used the kit lenses included with any of the >>>> cameras, that would be rather silly. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Actually the olympus E300 kit lens performs quite well. Replying to yourself, are you? But, now that you bring it up, that's the "loss leader" I referred to below. >>>> First, it wouldn't show the >>>> potential of the camera, and, second, it would give the manufacturer [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Because it's what many people will end up using? No, it isn't, at least not for the duration of ownership, and the reviewer can't be expected to go all clairvoyant on us and guess which lens will be used by the individual buyer, so as close to a common denominator makes more sense. >> Whether I was testing a Nikon, Oly, Canon, Pentax, or whatever, I'd try >> to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Which these review sites rarely seem to do. Why should they? Kit lenses may be the most bought, but few people retain them as their only lens for any great length of time... SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com >>>>>> I think it's sad the >>>>>> review sites all seem to use the 50 f1.4 for the "test shots" rather [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] >Why should they? Kit lenses may be the most bought, but few people retain >them as their only lens for any great length of time... Is this really the case now? Before, with film SLRs I'd agree for sure, because the enthusiasts bought them. But now, with Joe Average springing for DSLRs do we really know they will be buying extra lenses the way the SLR buyers did? It's a different market segment. -Rich > Is this really the case now? Before, with film SLRs I'd agree for > sure, because the enthusiasts bought them. But now, with Joe Average > springing for DSLRs do we really know they will be buying extra lenses > the way the SLR buyers did? It's a different market segment. > -Rich The temptation is to great to blame the equipment for one's own shortcomings, as in, "If I just had a 17-85/28-135/24-70L instead of the 18-55/17-85/28-135, my images would be so much better." Even if one doesn't really thing that, it sounds good to one's significant other who is trying to be supportive in the new hobby... Same market, different players... SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com >> Is this really the case now? Before, with film SLRs I'd agree for >> sure, because the enthusiasts bought them. But now, with Joe Average [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > is trying to be supportive in the new hobby... > Same market, different players... Yea it would suck if the camera came with a good lens to start with so you couldn't spend money upgrading... SignatureStacey >>> Is this really the case now? Before, with film SLRs I'd agree for >>> sure, because the enthusiasts bought them. But now, with Joe Average [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Yea it would suck if the camera came with a good lens to start with so you > couldn't spend money upgrading... You have no plans to upgrade or purchase any lenses besides the one(s) that came with your Oly? And the 20D does come with the 17-85 f4-5.6 IS USM, which is, indeed, a good lens. SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com > And the 20D does come with the 17-85 f4-5.6 IS USM, which is, indeed, a > good lens. And when did anyone test this "kit"? And then what camera do they compare this $2000 kit to? Of course people like you want to compare it to the sub $1000 models from the other makers.. Wow imagine a camera at 2X the price performs slightly better! SignatureStacey >> And the 20D does come with the 17-85 f4-5.6 IS USM, which is, indeed, a >> good lens. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > $1000 models from the other makers.. Wow imagine a camera at 2X the price > performs slightly better! WHERE IN THE HELL DID I COMPARE IT TO A SUB $1000 CAMERA?????????? I was merely pointing out that some Canon cameras came with a better lens than the 18-55 as part of a kit. And I don't know when anyone tested that as a kit, I don't know when anyone tested the 18-55 as part of a kit, I don't know when or where anyone tested a Nikon, Oly or Pentax with any lens as a kit. And where did anyone say "slightly better?" Cripes, Stacey, have a rare knack for non sequiteurs. SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com >>> And the 20D does come with the 17-85 f4-5.6 IS USM, which is, indeed, a >>> good lens. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > WHERE IN THE HELL DID I COMPARE IT TO A SUB $1000 CAMERA?????????? People here do it all the time. Someone mentions they are thinking about an E300 or the cheaper nikon and they chime in "Get a 20D!!" like they are the same price point, they aren't even CLOSE! > I was merely pointing out that some Canon cameras came with a better lens > than the 18-55 as part of a kit. And makes either "kit" $500+ more expensive. Even the rebel with this decent lens is 2X what a single lens E300 kit costs.. > And I don't know when anyone tested that as a kit, I don't know when > anyone tested the 18-55 as part of a kit, I don't know when or where > anyone tested > a Nikon, Oly or Pentax with any lens as a kit. They seem to show plenty of test shots with the other kit lenses but use the better optics on the canon models. Wonder why that is? Couldn't be a -canon bias- I'm sure.. SignatureStacey >>>> And the 20D does come with the 17-85 f4-5.6 IS USM, which is, indeed, a >>>> good lens. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > the > same price point, they aren't even CLOSE! I didn't, though. By the way, the same comment gets made about the Rebels, too. >> I was merely pointing out that some Canon cameras came with a better lens >> than the 18-55 as part of a kit. > > And makes either "kit" $500+ more expensive. Even the rebel with this > decent > lens is 2X what a single lens E300 kit costs.. Like I said, the Oly is a loss leader, to entice people to buy into a system with, as yet, limited support, and late to the party, to boot. Not a bad move on the part of Oly, by the way, IMHO. >> And I don't know when anyone tested that as a kit, I don't know when >> anyone tested the 18-55 as part of a kit, I don't know when or where [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > a -canon > bias- I'm sure.. Where? All I've seen in tests of bodies are f1.4 or 1.7 lenses (in the case of Pentax.) SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com >> Is this really the case now? Before, with film SLRs I'd agree for >> sure, because the enthusiasts bought them. But now, with Joe Average [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >to be supportive in the new hobby... >Same market, different players... But, in this case, the complainer would be right, an L lens will DEFINITELY make a difference. In fact, sometimes, it's tougher dealing with a really good lens because if you do screw up some technical detail in taking the shot, it will absolutely let you know you did! Take a macro shot by hand and use too slow a shutter speed and pow! Your shot is blurred and you kick yourself for not having made the most of it. But, if the lens sucks, you could say, "We'll, it looks about the same as always, I'll crank up the sharpness control in PS!! >>> Is this really the case now? Before, with film SLRs I'd agree for >>> sure, because the enthusiasts bought them. But now, with Joe Average [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > most of it. But, if the lens sucks, you could say, "We'll, it looks > about the same as always, I'll crank up the sharpness control in PS!! In a way, that's my point. If you're saying, "well, it looks the same as always, I'll crank up the sharpness in PS," eventually the though occurs that you may be able to circumvent that by upgrading the lens. And, believe me, since I picked up a 24-70L last month, I've become more critical of some of my results, needing to be more careful with skin textures, for instance. SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com >>Why should they? Kit lenses may be the most bought, but few people retain >>them as their only lens for any great length of time... > > Is this really the case now? Before, with film SLRs I'd agree for > sure, because the enthusiasts bought them. I don't even buy that. I know several people who owned SLR's and never bought a lens besides the 50mm (or 30-70 zoom on later ones) that came on it. SignatureStacey > "Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message > You can't have your cake and eat it, too. First you say that Canon's > alleged agressive noise reduction cuts detail, then the lens cuts detail, > then the > lack of noise makes up for the poor resolution of the lens. Pick one, and > get back to me. Actually it's that the cheap lens has to be stopped down so far to even be usable, the camera MUST have good high ISO performance so it's all three. >>>>> To address your "points," a lot of people will buy lenses that cost as >>>>> much [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Let's see those stats, Stace. How many people actually buy a lens other than the one the camera came with? From numbers I've seen posted in the past, it doesn't add up that many people buy extra lenses. >Canon sells more lenses than cameras. Even if they do, that doesn't mean every camera body owner does or that even most do. I think you've made that stat up? :-) >>>>> If the review sites all used the kit lenses included with any of the >>>>> cameras, that would be rather silly. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Replying to yourself, are you? But, now that you bring it up, that's the > "loss leader" I referred to below. So? If the combination of camera/lens performs well at a price point what's the problem? If you have to buy a $600+ lens to make a $800 rebel perform well, it's no longer a sub $1000 camera is it? >> Because it's what many people will end up using? > > No, it isn't, at least not for the duration of ownership, > and the reviewer > can't be expected to go all clairvoyant on us and guess which lens will be > used by the individual buyer How about just testing the one that comes on the camera? >>> Whether I was testing a Nikon, Oly, Canon, Pentax, or whatever, I'd try >>> to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Why should they? Because it majorly affects the image quality? > Kit lenses may be the most bought, but few people retain > them as their only lens for any great length of time... If it's a good lens, why would they need to? Ah maybe that's the point? Include a crappy lens with the camera, the review sites don't show how bad they are (uses a "ringer" lens not included with the camera) then once they've bought the camera they HAVE to buy another lens? And you bitch that someone else includes this "ringer" lens WITH the camera? SignatureStacey SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com > >> "Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > even > most do. I think you've made that stat up? :-) I didn't make it up, it just stands to reason. But I should clarify, I was referring to SLRs, digital and film, not P&S and ZLRs. >>>>>> If the review sites all used the kit lenses included with any of the >>>>>> cameras, that would be rather silly. [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > Because it majorly affects the image quality? The sensor affects it, too, more so. If you can't get an idea of the end result, then the test is a failure. >> Kit lenses may be the most bought, but few people retain >> them as their only lens for any great length of time... [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > that > someone else includes this "ringer" lens WITH the camera? I didn't "bitch" and I didn't call the Oly lens a ringer, I commented that the assortment was a loss leader (how much are those lenses in open stock?) and those wouldn't be a fair assessment of the camera, any more than the kit lens with the Nikon D50 would be, or even the one included with the D70s. Using a 50mm f1.4 or so keeps variable such as zoom quality, variable aperture and other such out of the equation. And it helps keep things even with cameras that don't come with lenses included. What conclusion could be reached if one was comparing the Nikon D70 with kit lens to a D2x with, say, a 28-80 f2.8? You wouldn't know if the image was the result of a better lens or better sensor. As long as the testers try to keep the lenses as equal to each other, there is no room for complaint. Again, they're testing CAMERAS, not LENSES! SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com > Skip Middleton >>>Canon sells more lenses than cameras. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I didn't make it up, it just stands to reason. Stands to reason? >>> Why should they? >> >> Because it majorly affects the image quality? > > The sensor affects it, too, more so. If you can't get an idea of the end > result, then the test is a failure. If you can't get a sharp image to the sensor, who cares how great the sensor is? >>> Kit lenses may be the most bought, but few people retain >>> them as their only lens for any great length of time... [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > with the D70s. Using a 50mm f1.4 or so keeps variable such as zoom > quality, variable aperture and other such out of the equation. Even though many people are going to be using the included lens? > And it > helps keep things even with cameras that don't come with lenses included. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > try to keep the lenses as equal to each other, there is no room for > complaint. Again, they're testing CAMERAS, not LENSES! Again interesting these "review" sites seem to ignore the poor image quality the canon kit lens supplies. God forbid they coment on it and lose advertizing $$$ from Canon! SignatureStacey >Again interesting these "review" sites seem to ignore the poor image quality >the canon kit lens supplies. God forbid they coment on it and lose >advertizing $$$ from Canon! FWIW, I've seen images from two different EF-S II 18-55mm lenses owned by friends and none are what I would describe as "poor image quality". Had I taken them I'd have been quite happy. That's not to say that the example you used was the same - I think it's pretty obvious that the QC on such a budget lens is variable to say the least. The 18-55mm kit lens is built to a price in order to let Canon sell a complete DSLR at a particular price point, pure and simple. It might be a decidedly average lens in the great scheme of things, but if it allows people to get a foot on the digital SLR ladder and enjoy their photography is it *really* such a terrible thing? We all had to start somewhere.... :-) Al Signature[This space intentionally left blank] >>Again interesting these "review" sites seem to ignore the poor image >>quality [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Al She's never used the 18-55, she said she used it on a 10D, a camera it doesn't fit. When confronted with that, she backpedaled and said it was whatever POS lens that Canon shipped as a kit with that camera, and she couldn't be bothered to keep up with whatever Canon did. She probably used the 28-90 f4-5.6, one of Canon's less well regarded lenses. In fact, one to be avoided. If Stacey had launched a tirade about that lens, she wouldn't have gotten so much argument. SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com >> Skip Middleton > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > sensor > is? Are you really this obtuse, or are you just amusing yourself? If all Canon lenses gave the same results as the 18-55, then, yes, you'd have a point. But don't you think it benificial to show what a sensor/camera can do, rather than be limited by lens issues? >>>> Kit lenses may be the most bought, but few people retain >>>> them as their only lens for any great length of time... [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Even though many people are going to be using the included lens? Yes, otherwise they'd have no knowledge of the potential of the camera. >> And it >> helps keep things even with cameras that don't come with lenses included. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > the canon kit lens supplies. God forbid they coment on it and lose > advertizing $$$ from Canon! They don't ignore it, they comment on the quality, just because they, who've actually used the lens, disagree with you, who has not, shouldn't come as any surprise... And why would they comment on lens quality in a camera review? Lord, girl, you are looking denser by the moment. SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com >>> Skip Middleton >> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > point. But don't you think it benificial to show what a sensor/camera can > do, rather than be limited by lens issues? Oh please, they basically IGNORE the lens that comes with the camera when many people are going to use that lens for at least a while if not the whole time they own the camera. I dare say MOST people buy these as a 'better' camera for snapshooting and have no plans on dumping thousands of dollars into a system. >> Even though many people are going to be using the included lens? > > Yes, otherwise they'd have no knowledge of the potential of the camera. Yet they refrain from showing any real test shots with them, other than a couple of sniplets of a test chart. Why can't they use BOTH? It's not like it takes that much more time (or they have to use more film) to do this once they have a shoot set up. >> Again interesting these "review" sites seem to ignore the poor image >> quality >> the canon kit lens supplies. God forbid they coment on it and lose >> advertizing $$$ from Canon! > > And why would they comment on lens quality in a camera review? ???? Yea the lens has nothing to do with image quality. > Lord, > girl, you are looking denser by the moment. I love this, someone has a different point of view on something so they must be stupid and require a personal insult from you? SignatureStacey >>>> Skip Middleton >>> [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > 'better' camera for snapshooting and have no plans on dumping thousands of > dollars into a system. Then the 18-55 is sufficient to the purpose. But if they only tested with that lens, then the customer would a) think that the images that don't match the ones taken with a 20D and 24-70L are the fault of the camera, not the lens, or b) not buy the camera because the images shown are not up to 50mm f1.4 standards, which is the lens that DPReview uses to test other cameras, too. Like the Nikons. >>> Even though many people are going to be using the included lens? >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > it takes that much more time (or they have to use more film) to do this > once they have a shoot set up. Then they'd have to do the same thing for every SLR and DSLR that comes down the pike. and which lens do you pick to use? Since the 50mm 1.4, or its equivalent, is available in all camera lines, and it is usually one of the best lenses in that line, that is a logical one to choose. But if you're going to use more than one lens to test a camera ( a concept that you seem to find useful) one of them a somewhat less than optimal quality lens, why don't you completely jettison the 50mm and pick whatever lens the mfr. feels is the absolute best in their respective line? Now the prospective customer has absolutely nothing to base a decision on, since he hasn't a clue to the actual performance of the sensor, since the lenses give different results (magnification, distortion, etc.) >>> Again interesting these "review" sites seem to ignore the poor image >>> quality [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > ???? Yea the lens has nothing to do with image quality. Repeating this doesn't make it any more germane. It's a CAMERA review, not a LENS review. >> Lord, >> girl, you are looking denser by the moment. > > I love this, someone has a different point of view on something so they > must > be stupid and require a personal insult from you? That you hold a different point of view from me isn't the point, or problem. It's that you single mindedly dwell on one point to the exclusion of any other, you edit out what doesn't fit your snippy little comments, and you can't seem to figure out that using a lens that adversely affects image quality to any degree would make no sense in a camera test. That would be like putting in WalMart brand film in a film camera to test a lens, "because that's what most people will buy." Or using the infamous 28-90 f4-5.6 to test Fuji Velvia. You have to know the potential of the image to make an informed decision. If the customer is only going to use the camera for snaps, then the 18-55 is more than sufficient. IF they're not, then they need to have accurate information as to the performance of the camera. Skip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com > Repeating this doesn't make it any more germane. It's a CAMERA > review, not a LENS review. Here is the problem. A camera consists of a body and a lens. I think you are both right. I guess that's why you keep arguing. The reviewer is in a no-win situation unless they conduct 2 separate reviews. Some people will need to know how the kit performs but others want to know what the body is capable of if they choose the best lenses. -Mike >> Repeating this doesn't make it any more germane. It's a CAMERA >> review, not a LENS review. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > -Mike In this case, the camera is the image capturing device, so it makes no sense to put a less than optimal lens on it to test its capabilities. If they need to know how a lens performs, that's what lens tests are for... SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com > Some people will need to know how the kit performs but others want > to know what the body is capable of if they choose the best lenses. There are reviews that cover this. Since camera makers sell the body-only, kits with basic lenses, and kits with higher end lenses, the consumer has a choice. There isn't much savings, it any, in buying a kit versus body and lenses separately. I guess that Canon believes more in choice. With the 20D, there is a kit with a high end lens and a kit with an average lens. With Nikon, the only D70 kit comes with a mid-grade lens, and the D50 kit comes with an average lens. What is amusing is that the fact that the 18-55 Canon kit lens has become the sole issue that the ACZs are using to attack Canon. >> Yet they refrain from showing any real test shots with them, other than a >> couple of sniplets of a test chart. Why can't they use BOTH? It's not [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Then they'd have to do the same thing for every SLR and DSLR that comes > down the pike. And the problem with that is? > and which lens do you pick to use? Maybe the one they include with the camera? Might force them to Improve this kit lens rather that keep throwing a garbage lens in.. Again would it be that tough to throw in a few test shots with the kit lens? Or maybe even do a comparo test of all the kit lenses so people can add that into the "value" of each kit? You are ignoring the fact many people don't have an unlimited budget and have to choose the most bang for the buck. SignatureStacey >>> Yet they refrain from showing any real test shots with them, other than >>> a [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > "value" of each kit? You are ignoring the fact many people don't have an > unlimited budget and have to choose the most bang for the buck. 1st, that lens is not "garbage," 2nd, testing with kit lenses would disadvantage ALL cameras, even your beloved Olys, because they are, by definition, less than optimal, 3rd, what's to prevent a mfr. from throwing in a ringer to get decidedly better results than the others, and 4th, what are we testing here, lenses or cameras? It's the latter you seem to have a need to ignore. SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com >>>> Yet they refrain from showing any real test shots with them, other than >>>> a [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >are we testing here, lenses or cameras? It's the latter you seem to have a >need to ignore. There should be no "ringers" nowadays as the lenses are all computer-made and uniform, though of poor quality. Since testing with kit lenses would disadvantage all cameras, then they should test both, with the admonition that the kit lens is what the retailer is likely to try to sell you. Of what value is testing the camera with a higher end lens, if the person reading the test assumes that is the way it will test and goes out only to find the kit lens isn't that good? The average buyer won't even know about "L" lenses or other options. Imagine if some magazine recommended an after market lens as an alternative to the kit lens! -Rich >>>>> Yet they refrain from showing any real test shots with them, other >>>>> than [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > There should be no "ringers" nowadays as the lenses are all > computer-made and uniform, though of poor quality. You didn't actually mean to say that all lenses are of poor quality, did you? That's what this sentence structure seem to imply, but I'm sure you didn't. There are opportunities for hand assembled lenses or ones pulled from production stock and optimized to be sent off. Computers may design them, and assemble them, but within ever widening tolerances. If those tolerances are tightened, by whatever means, then that would be a "ringer." > Since testing with kit lenses would disadvantage all cameras, then > they should test both, with the admonition that the kit lens is what [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > lens isn't that good? The average buyer won't even know about "L" > lenses or other options. The thing is, someone who has no intention of buying, or using for any extended period, the kit or low level lenses would have a slanted idea of what the camera may be capable of, and not buy it. Frankly, if I had seen images taken with some of the Canon lenses that are included with kits, like the 28-90, I'd probably still be working in film, since it would be obvious to me that digital wasn't capable of doing the same job as my 1n and a 28-135 IS. And if you test both, what is the other lens to be? You'd find yourself testing every damned lens in the line, because more people are likely to by a zoom, or a short zoom, or, if it's a 1D mkII, an L lens. See? Settle on one lens, and use it and its variations from other mfrs. > Imagine if some magazine recommended an after market lens as an > alternative to the kit lens! This might be the solution, have every camera tested with, say, a Tamron 90mm f2.8 Macro. A well respected, excellent lens available in pretty much every mount on the market. Or maybe the Sigma 105 f2.8 Macro, if it comes in Oly 4/3 mount. > -Rich SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com > "RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message >> Since testing with kit lenses would disadvantage all cameras, then >> they should test both, with the admonition that the kit lens is what >> the retailer is likely to try to sell you. Snip > The thing is, someone who has no intention of buying, or using for any > extended period, the kit or low level lenses would have a slanted idea of > what the camera may be capable of, and not buy it. Good grief do you even READ what people right before you jump back? He said THEY SHOULD TEST WITH BOTH, same as I said. Why does this bother you so much? You don't want people looking at your beloved Canon camera actually seeing what they will get from the kit and will need to buy a lens that costs as much as the whole kit to get the same results shown in the tests? SignatureStacey >> "RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > seeing what they will get from the kit and will need to buy a lens that > costs as much as the whole kit to get the same results shown in the tests? Talk about not reading before you jump in, did you? Or did you just, again, edit out what I said about testing with both lenses so you could justify not replying to it? And the 50mm f1.4 is a little under $300, not exactly what the kit costs. Or if it is, I want another "kit!" SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com >>>>>> Yet they refrain from showing any real test shots with them, other >>>>>> than [quoted text clipped - 66 lines] >in Oly 4/3 mount. >> -Rich The magazines and paid testers will never do it. Their job is to sell the Canon they are testing and not dissuade the consumer from buying a Canon lens. Even though in a recent lens-only test I saw, a Tamron beat out all the related name brand lenses against it. -Rich > The thing is, someone who has no intention of buying, or using for any > extended period, the kit or low level lenses would have a slanted idea of > what the camera may be capable of, and not buy it. This is a good point. Look at poor Stacey, who doesn't even know which lens he/she use with the 10D! Some people are totally clueless, though in Stacey's case it's highly unlikely that he/she ever used the 10D in the first place. I even warn about this on the web site, stating "The D70's 18-70mm kit lens is better than the 18-55 kit lens on the EOS-350D, so if you plan to never buy any other lenses the D70s may be a better choice." I worry about newbies coming to this group and being totally misled by people like Stacey and Tony, who clearly have an agenda to bash Canon, and desperately look for anything negative. They've desperately latched onto kit lenses, which they should reconsider, because it's making them look exceedingly foolish. Few people are stupid enough to base a D-SLR purchase solely on the kit lens. That's why I created "http://digitalslrinfo.com", it's an unbiased and objective look at what's out there in digital SLRs. For entry level, the D50 is clearly the best choice for someone without any lenses (or with Nikon lenses). For consumer grade, the EOS-350D edges out the D70, and for prosumer, the 20D is the clear winner. >That's why I created "http://digitalslrinfo.com", it's an unbiased and >objective look at what's out there in digital SLRs. ROTFL!!!! It's the biggest load of biased nonsense about DSLRs on the Internet. And you know it is, because that is what you made it. > and > for prosumer, the 20D is the clear winner. Which of course just happens to be the camera you own, good thing this isn't a biased POV! SignatureStacey > I love this, someone has a different point of view on something so they must > be stupid and require a personal insult from you? The big problem here is that you (Stacey) come off looking like you believe there is some big conspiracy going on between all the reviewers and one camera company. Here is the realistic view: If (lets say)Phil at Dpreview could be bought off so easily, dont you think some other camera company could come up with more money than Canon to buy him off, at least for a month or so????? Each reviewer is only one guy, and one guy, if he is for sale, can be bought by any camera company. I know Canon is the biggest and richest of the Camera companies, but any one of them can spend more money to "buy" a reviewer in any given month. Once you have done what he does, you can feel free to chirp on and on about whether or not someone is a Shill for a camera company. The question I hear most about reviews in general is "why is Average the very worst review level".. The answer is he doesnt want to get into a pissing contest with a camera company, they ALL (yes ALL) are his bread and butter. The Canon Cameras come off a little better in most reviews because they are just a little better (in some way) than the competition at the time of the review. When the Original D-Rebel came out, there was NO other camera like it in its price bracket. The same for the D20 The same for the Rebel XT. As long as Canon keeps doing the Bigger/Better/Faster thing, (more megapixels) (low noise) (bigger buffers, faster start-up) and doing it BEFORE the competition they are going to get better reviews. By the time the competition catches up, everything in their camera is a big yawn. The only thing Canon has been outpaced with is the Olympus "self cleaning" feature. That alone almost sold me the Evolt, but I tried one and it couldn't compete in the low light I have to shoot in most of the time. Im not a "brand" nut, and I still would like to own an Evolt (the 2 lens kit looks attractive) but it will have to wait a while, as I have pictures to take and sell. Im just a "hack" photographer, and I only get to sell my pictures because, at this time, nobody else is doing what I do where I do it. I only wish I had talent comensurate with the capabilities of my equipment. I am however, smart enough to figure out why Canon gets better reviews most of the time. Its simply because they are the first to come out with the goods. Its called TIMING and Canon so far has had the best timing. This isnt a freakin' religion, its photography. Stop seeing conspiracies, they really arent there. You like your Oly, I like your OLY, cant we all just get along??? In my whole time reading this NG I have only killfiled one guy because I was tired of hearing how his camera (if he had one) was better than everything else out there, and his just didn't get any respect and yadda, yadda, yadda// Dont you see you are going down the same road as him whith your constant pounding of the Canon cameras and lenses??? The kit lens is a "cheapie" designed to get people to buy the camera because it includes a lens... People who know what they are getting into will take a pass (maybe) on the kit lens.. (I didnt, because it is sufficient to my "Wide angle" needs) I shoot all my ring shots with a 3rd party 28 - 90 lens, I shoot allmost all my portraits with a 30 year old f1.8 50 mm contax fully manual lens which happens to have a "bokeh" I like. Yes, other camera companies have, from time to time, included a better lens than the Canon kit lens with their camera. Its NOT a conspiracy, its business.. Build it, Box it, sell it as best you can. The best Canon needed to do was include a "cheapie" lens. It has sold a BUNCH of DSLRs. (even to me) SignatureLarry Lynch Mystic, Ct. > Its NOT a conspiracy, its business.. Build it, Box it, sell it as best you > can. The best Canon needed to do was include a "cheapie" lens. It has > sold a BUNCH of DSLRs. (even to me) I guess my point is IF they actually gave some weight to the kit lens in these reviews of camera kits, it would force the manufacturers to improve these lenses rather than keep throwing these poor quality lenses in with their kits. Canon knows the review sites are going to use the old 50mm f1.4 prime so there is no reason for them to care how good or bad the lens they include with the camera is. Who is that helping in any way, other then Canon? SignatureStacey >> Its NOT a conspiracy, its business.. Build it, Box it, sell it as best you >> can. The best Canon needed to do was include a "cheapie" lens. It has [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >include with the camera is. Who is that helping in any way, other then >Canon? Exactly. There is a precedent for this. Way back when, Tamron were producing 35-80mm kit lenses for Nikon and Pentax 35mm SLRs (maybe Canon too). Some very critical reviews of the SLRs fitted with these kit lenses forced the camera manufacturers to insist Tamron improved the lens design, and Tamron did. Later, Tamron produced 28-80mm kit lenses for 35mm SLRs. Once again, the optical quality was not great. Revised versions were introduced. What this all boils down to is that you can only expect a junk lens for $75. And that's what you get with Canon. Unfortunately, other manufacturers are forced to offer cheap lenses to compete with Canon's junk lens. The cheap kit lenses from Pentax, Nikon and Olympus are significantly better than the Canon kit lens but they still aren't great lenses. However, Nikon offer the excellent 18-70mm with the D70(s), Pentax have a very good 16-45mm and Olympus offer the superb 14-54mm. All are much better than the cheap kit lenses in their respective ranges, but it is important to remember that even those kit lenses are very much better than Canon's pathetic offering. There is too much obsessing about sensor size and pixel count and not enough attention paid to optics. But that's digital photography! ;-) >>> Its NOT a conspiracy, its business.. Build it, Box it, sell it as best you >>> can. The best Canon needed to do was include a "cheapie" lens. It has [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > >;-) No, that's catering to a new SLR demographic that doesn't know any better by offering the cameras as cheaply as can be. This can't be good for the industry in the long run, but it's been said that the Japanese are less worried about profits per sale than they are about moving product. So, whenever you see the entry-level DSLRs offered by a camera store, inevitably they highlight the cheap price for the "kit." On rare occassions, I've seen some attempt to include a good quality lens but the average person doesn't notice and only sees the higher price. Contrast this to SLR sales of years ago when the price quoted was generally for the body, the lens choice being left up to the buyer. -Rich > This can't be > good for the industry in the long run, It's sure not going to be good for future dSLR sales. If people who owned higher end prosumer digital cameras with high quality optics buy one of these "kits" with poor optics, they surely are going to be wondering why the pictures they get don't seem much better or even as good as they used to get. Looks like they are going for the "one sale" approach? SignatureStacey >> This can't be >> good for the industry in the long run, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >the pictures they get don't seem much better or even as good as they used >to get. Looks like they are going for the "one sale" approach? I've already seen this happen, in a local camera store. Someone bought a DSLR and previously owned some kind of Canon point and shoot and was complaining that the DSLR was producing pictures that were less sharp. They had prints done to show the sales person. Now, it could have been some other reason for the difference, but I happen to know cameras like the Canon S-series do produce very sharp pictures. One of the reasons for this is that the small sensor of those cameras does not require magic to produce a sharp lens to go along with it whereas the large sensors of the DSLRs actually need high quality lenses and designs to maximize their potential and if you put a dog lens up to them, the pictures are pathetic. The average customer cares less about tonality and noise than sharpness and that is where the crummy kit lenses are weakest. Oh, and the Canon kit lens also lacks contrast which gives images a sharper look. A two-time loser. -Rich >However, Nikon offer the excellent 18-70mm with the D70(s), Pentax >have a very good 16-45mm and Olympus offer the superb 14-54mm. All >are much better than the cheap kit lenses in their respective ranges, >but it is important to remember that even those kit lenses are very >much better than Canon's pathetic offering. Digital Photo (a UK magazine) tested the Canon 350D and Nikon D70 back-to-back in the June issue. The Canon came with the 18-55mm zoom and the Nikon with the 18-70mm lens. After comparing identically-shot images from both they came down narrowly in favour of the Canon. "[It] produced almost flawless results in terms of quality; the detail in the images, especially in the RAW files is very impressive." Hardly the results of a "pathetic" lens.... Al Signature[This space intentionally left blank] >Digital Photo (a UK magazine) tested the Canon 350D and Nikon D70 >back-to-back in the June issue. The Canon came with the 18-55mm zoom [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >the images, especially in the RAW files is very impressive." Hardly >the results of a "pathetic" lens.... There are very, very few magazines whose equipment reviews are entirely objective and completely impartial. Who has the larger advertising budget? Canon or Nikon? ;-) >There are very, very few magazines whose equipment reviews are >entirely objective and completely impartial. Oh well, I guess their praise for the D70 was equally invalid then. >Who has the larger advertising budget? Canon or Nikon? I don't know Tony, but I'm sure you're about to tell us. I've had a look at the advertising in the issue in question. It carried two Canon adverts (one for the 350D and one for the Pixma IP4000 printer). Nikon was represented by one ad (for the Coolpx S1) and Pentax had one for their *istDS SLR. There was also a review of five slimline digital compacts in which the Canon offering came in bottom of the pile. Yup, looks like a Canon mouthpiece to me.... Al Signature[This space intentionally left blank] >>There are very, very few magazines whose equipment reviews are >>entirely objective and completely impartial. > > Oh well, I guess their praise for the D70 was equally invalid then. One of the mistakes that some people make is trying to equate the "feel" of the camera body to the build quality. I.e., the EOS-300D does feel less well made because of the plasticky body material. But if you actually look at things that matter, such as things like battery covers, etc., the EOS-300D is actually better than the D70 or D100. It's rather amusing to see claims that every good review for a Canon product is the result of advertising dollars, but good reviews for Nikon products are the result of a great product! >>However, Nikon offer the excellent 18-70mm with the D70(s), Pentax >>have a very good 16-45mm and Olympus offer the superb 14-54mm. All [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > the images, especially in the RAW files is very impressive." Hardly > the results of a "pathetic" lens.... The 18-55 is a decent lens when you stop it down a little. The review may have been using settings that eliminated the advantage of the Nikon lens, and the advantages of the 350 body over the D70 body made the difference in giving the edge to Canon. >> Digital Photo (a UK magazine) tested the Canon 350D and Nikon D70 >> back-to-back in the June issue. The Canon came with the 18-55mm zoom [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> the images, especially in the RAW files is very impressive." Hardly >> the results of a "pathetic" lens.... >The 18-55 is a decent lens when you stop it down a little. The review >may have been using settings that eliminated the advantage of the Nikon >lens, and the advantages of the 350 body over the D70 body made the >difference in giving the edge to Canon. The images were taken using the same settings for both cameras, both outdoors on location and in a studio using Bowen Tri-Lites metered with a Sekonic L-608, across the full range of ISO ratings. Al Signature[This space intentionally left blank] >>However, Nikon offer the excellent 18-70mm with the D70(s), Pentax >>have a very good 16-45mm and Olympus offer the superb 14-54mm. All [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >Al What was it the other fellow said about a "ringer?" No way that Canon lens could test that well, it is simply not a good lens. I don't care what the mag said. I've tested three different ones and they are not good lenses. So, unless I somehow happened to get three flawed lenses, I'd say my test holds more water than their opinion. And the great thing is, I don't have to sell advertising to Canon. -Rich >>>However, Nikon offer the excellent 18-70mm with the D70(s), Pentax >>>have a very good 16-45mm and Olympus offer the superb 14-54mm. All [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > And the great thing is, I don't have to sell advertising to Canon. > -Rich I have had one, still have it, and don't find it "flawed." Not up to 28-135 standards, not to mention 24-70, but not the POS that everyone seems to claim. And, yes I have the other two lenses mentioned. That being said, the only reason we still have it is that it isn't worth selling on ebay... SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com >>>>However, Nikon offer the excellent 18-70mm with the D70(s), Pentax >>>>have a very good 16-45mm and Olympus offer the superb 14-54mm. All [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > standards, not to mention 24-70, but not the POS that everyone seems to > claim. Only two or three people claim that, and they themselves don't even believe it. The fact that the Nikon 18-70 is a better kit lens than the Canon 18-55, is the only thing they have with which to attack Canon. Understand that these people are simply furious at Canon's success. >Only two or three people claim that, and they themselves don't even >believe it. The fact that the Nikon 18-70 is a better kit lens than the >Canon 18-55, is the only thing they have with which to attack Canon. No-one is attacking Canon, merely pointing out that your ever more strident shilling for your brand makes you look extremely foolish. Yes, the Nikon kit lens is much better, but that's not all. The Nikon DSLRs have better build quality, spot metering, and less aggressive noise reduction that means more detail is retained. It's no use having extra pixels if the resulting detail is smeared away by too much noise reduction. The new D50 also has lower noise than any Canon consumer/prosumer DSLR - quite an achievement at that price point. Time for Canon to bring out yet another revised model or two to catch up? ;-) >Understand that these people are simply furious at Canon's success. Furious? Nothing to be furious about, merely some silly people who value theoretical specifications over real image quality ... people who deserve to be laughed at for their stubborn and determined ignorance, and their vain attempts to portray their brand in a favourable light in spite of the facts. > Yes, the Nikon kit lens is much better, but that's not all. The Nikon > DSLRs have better build quality Actually, build quality is about the same. I like the Nikon user interfaces a bit better than the Canon ones, but there's nothing wrong with the feel of a 20D, and the 1DsMkII body is close to indestructible. Also, I've never seen the Nikon kit lens compared to the 17-85 Canon kit lens... I suspect those may be comparable. > spot metering Major bonus points to Nikon here, granted. > and less aggressive noise reduction that means more detail is > retained. It's no use having extra pixels if the resulting detail > is smeared away by too much noise reduction. And this myth is the reason I'm writing. This has been shown to not be true, at least in the RAW. Nikon may have a better internal JPG converter. Since in-camera JPG is "preview mode" for me, I never really cared, but if you shoot almost exclusively straight to JPG, you may be better off with a Nikon. (Actually, you may be better off with a Panasonic, but that's another topic.) Shooting to RAW, I think you'd be slightly better off with the Canon, particularly since Nikon started encrypting info on the RAW files. > The new D50 also has lower noise than any Canon consumer/prosumer DSLR > - quite an achievement at that price point. Time for Canon to bring > out yet another revised model or two to catch up? ;-) Reference? The last comparison test shots I saw of a D50 showed it to be (slightly) noisier than the 20D, though not so much so that I'd really be concerned about it. > people who deserve to be laughed at for their stubborn and > determined ignorance, and their vain attempts to portray their brand > in a favourable light in spite of the facts. Uh huh... SignatureZed Pobre <zed@resonant.org> a.k.a. Zed Pobre <zed@debian.org> PGP key and fingerprint available on finger; encrypted mail welcomed. >>Yes, the Nikon kit lens is much better, but that's not all. The Nikon >>DSLRs have better build quality [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > with the feel of a 20D, and the 1DsMkII body is close to > indestructible. I've seen a lot of complaints about the 300D and the D70 build quality, including magazine reviews that noted this. But invariably they praise the 20D build quality. I haven't seen any complaints about the 350D build quality as of yet. > Also, I've never seen the Nikon kit lens compared to the 17-85 Canon > kit lens... I suspect those may be comparable. The Canon lens is an image stabilization lens, but other than that, you're correct, they are comparable. It might be nice if Canon did a non-IS version of the 17-85 in order to have a $300 lens like Nikon's sole kit offering. But Canon is catering more toward the enthusiast with the 17-85IS lens, while Nikon is trying to cater to a more cost sensitive market. >I've seen a lot of complaints about the 300D and the D70 build quality, >including magazine reviews that noted this. But invariably they praise >the 20D build quality. We already know you only read things that favour Canon and diss Nikon. You have a medical condition called "selective dyslexia", probably the Canon variant. >>I've seen a lot of complaints about the 300D and the D70 build quality, >>including magazine reviews that noted this. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > You have a medical condition called "selective dyslexia", probably the > Canon variant. ... I think that exchange right there shows who has the "selective dyslexia" problem... SignatureZed Pobre <zed@resonant.org> a.k.a. Zed Pobre <zed@debian.org> PGP key and fingerprint available on finger; encrypted mail welcomed. > And this myth is the reason I'm writing. This has been shown to not > be true, at least in the RAW. Nikon may have a better internal JPG [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > you'd be slightly better off with the Canon, particularly since Nikon > started encrypting info on the RAW files. I don't think that there's any doubt that Canon have superior in-camera processing. Canon and other makers also encrypt raw data. It's not a new idea. An open standard would be good. >I don't think that there's any doubt that Canon have superior in-camera >processing. >Canon and other makers also encrypt raw data. It's not a new idea. An >open standard would be good. Canon's RAW data is compressed, not encrypted. They just don't publish the method, and instead give an SDK that does the decompression for you. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< >>I don't think that there's any doubt that Canon have superior in-camera >>processing. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Canon's RAW data is compressed, not encrypted. They just don't publish > the method, and instead give an SDK that does the decompression for you. I prefer to believe Dave Coffin: "This is not a new problem. Phase One, Sony, Foveon, and Canon all apply some form of encryption to their RAW files" http://www.dpreview.com/news/0504/05042701davecoffininterview.asp >>Only two or three people claim that, and they themselves don't even >>believe it. The fact that the Nikon 18-70 is a better kit lens than the >>Can |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message