 |
 | 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 / March 2005Survey
Hi, five reason to choise Nikon digital reflex and five reason to choise Canon digital reflex ... if you wont five reason to choise other. Milena > Hi, > five reason to choise Nikon digital reflex and five reason to choise Canon > digital reflex ... > if you wont five reason to choise other. > Milena How's this? BOTH offer excellent cameras and superb lenses BOTH are widely available, and hence, so are service locations BOTH are dedicated to maintaining and expanding their systems Now, for two differences that probably only apply to me. Ergonomics: The Nikons feel better in my hands. Balance, controls, everything just feels better to me. That is totally subjective. Longevity: My personal experiences with both brands still lead me to feel that Nikon bodies and, in particular, lenses, are more durable (though they certainly made some cheap lenses in their consumer series). Nikon also has a better history of backward compatibility, IMO. When the Canon rep told me to plan on servicing my lenses annually and replacing my lenses every 3 to 5 years, he sold me on staying with Nikon. In nearly 30 years of shooting Nikon, I never needed to have a lens serviced. That said, I don't think you could go wrong with either system, especially if you are starting from scratch. And, the Pentax, Minolta, and Olympus systems certainly deserve consideration, especially for an amateur shooter. Just my opinion though. I don't own a digital body yet (but one will be my next purchase). Walt > How's this? > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Walt Your Nikon lenses have only given you 30 years of flawless performance??? Mine have been going for up to 32 years without ever needing any service (i.e., that is NO Nikon lens of mine has ever required service and they range in age up to 32 years old). AND they all work on my D70! ;^) I get a little frustrated with Nikon's lack of desire to produce a full frame sensor DSLR at times, but the equipment works even better than the Energizer bunny. I always prefer to pay for quality rather than maintenance and repairs (not a Canon slam...I have no experience with their SLRs or DSLRs). George I bought my first Nikkor in 1967 and the 50mm1.4 from then is still going strong today after being AI converted around 1979. Since that first purchase, up through today's AF-S Nikkors, I have never required lens service of any kind. Also through Ftn, F2as, F3, F3hp, F4s, F4e, F-100, F5 and digitals (two - 4300 and D2), I have never required any major body service (only a meter adjustment on the Ftn). I think that speaks favorably for Nikon's reliability. Bob >> How's this? >> [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > > George > When the Canon rep told me to plan on servicing my lenses annually and > replacing my lenses every 3 to 5 years, he sold me on staying with Nikon. That's nuts. To my knowledge, no one does that - unless maybe they shoot outdoors near saltwater and sand. >> When the Canon rep told me to plan on servicing my lenses annually and >> replacing my lenses every 3 to 5 years, he sold me on staying with Nikon. > > That's nuts. To my knowledge, no one does that - unless maybe they > shoot outdoors near saltwater and sand. I thought so too. But, hey, it was a Canon rep, not just the typical store clerk. I've also had two independent repair shops tell me that Canon lenses aren't as durable as well. So it did have a ring of truth to it. Still, as a non-pro only shooting 2 or 3 rolls a week, I doubt I would have any problems. The ergonomics, though, are enough to keep me with Nikon, and that is just a personal thing. It says nothing about the value, or lack there-of, of the cameras. Walt > "Brian Baird" <no@yeah.right> wrote in message > >> When the Canon rep told me to plan on servicing my lenses annually and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I thought so too. But, hey, it was a Canon rep, not just the typical store > clerk. So you claim. Personally, I find it hard to believe any representative of any company would make a statement along the lines you aver. Not even car companies do this, for Bob's sake. So please specify the date, context and the name of the "rep" who supposedly said what you claim they said. > I've also had two independent repair shops tell me that Canon lenses > aren't as durable as well. Let me guess: they were stocked to the tits with used Nikon gear. > So it did have a ring of truth to it. Don't be so credulous. > Still, as a non-pro only shooting 2 or 3 rolls a week, I doubt I would > have any problems. Is this supposed to impress us? > The ergonomics, though, are enough to keep me with Nikon, and that is > just a personal thing. It says nothing about the value, or > lack there-of, of the cameras. I despise Nikon "ergonomics". In fact, I bought my EOS 5 way back when simply because it was by far the easier camera to operate (the fancy, modern, AF also weighed heavily). The 10D's interface was very nice as well. Sadly, I can't say the same about the 1DMkII, but that's for another posting. >> > In article <1vidnWLXP_xoEr7fRVn-pA@comcast.com>, > walthanks@comcast.net [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > date, context and the name of the "rep" who supposedly said what you > claim they said. Is that the best arguement you can make, to call me a liar? Hey , really persuasive, and from a anonymous poster at that.. > I despise Nikon "ergonomics". In fact, I bought my EOS 5 way back when > simply because it was by far the easier camera to operate (the fancy, > modern, AF also weighed heavily). The 10D's interface was very nice as > well. Sadly, I can't say the same about the 1DMkII, but that's for > another posting. As I said, ergonomics are a personal thing and say nothing about the relative merits of a system. I'm glad you found something that feels good to you. Too bad you don't seem to want to allow me the same privilege. Walt >> So you claim. Personally, I find it hard to believe any representative >> of any company would make a statement along the lines you aver. Not [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Is that the best arguement you can make, to call me a liar? Nitwit: I made no argument. You are the one who has to back up your claim, not me. I will agree, however, that your _failure_ to substantiate your statements will make you a liar. Fortunately, this isn't my problem. So once again, please cite the date, place and name of the person who said what you claimed was said. > > I despise Nikon "ergonomics". In fact, I bought my EOS 5 way back when > > simply because it was by far the easier camera to operate (the fancy, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > relative merits of a system. I'm glad you found something that feels good > to you. Too bad you don't seem to want to allow me the same privilege. You need to work on basic reading comprehension, elementary argument structure, and avoid the distraction tactics of an infant. A hint: www.google.com: "straw man" fallacy On 01-Mar-05 00:38:47, eawckyegcy@yahoo.com said >>> So you claim. Personally, I find it hard to believe any >representative [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> >> Is that the best arguement you can make, to call me a liar? >Nitwit: I made no argument. You are the one who has to back up your >claim, not me. I will agree, however, that your _failure_ to >substantiate your statements will make you a liar. Fortunately, this >isn't my problem. I would suggest it is. The OP was reporting his experiences and your response was IMO rather insulting. Why is that necessary? If you don't believe him, fair enough, but inflicting this nonsense on what was a mature and interesting discussion seems rather anti-social to me. Thanks for your time. All the best, Angus Manwaring. (for e-mail remove ANTISPEM) I need your memories for the Amiga Games Database: A collection of Amiga Game reviews by Amiga players http://www.angusm.demon.co.uk/AGDB/AGDB.html >>> Is that the best arguement you can make, to call me a liar? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I would suggest it is. Don't be a nitwit. > The OP was reporting his experiences and your response was IMO > rather insulting. When Walt Hanks (not the "OP", but hey) told us that some "representative" for a major camera/optical told him that you have to: "[...] plan on servicing my lenses annually and replacing my lenses every 3 to 5 years [...]" he was not a "reporting his experiences". In legal circles it is called "hearsay", and is not admissible evidence. Go ahead, google it up. Extra points to find out why. Hence my calls for the name of the witness and the venue where the alleged statement was made. I don't expect a postive response from Hanks, though. Indeed, I find it highly unlikely a "representative" of a major camera/optical company is going to tell a potential customer anything of the sort (even if it was true -- which it is most certainly not). > Why is that necessary? If you don't believe him, fair enough, Hanks was shovelling it fast and furious; Brian Baird called his bluff, and I concurred. If you like bullshit, stick to the card game. > but > inflicting this nonsense on what was a mature and interesting > discussion seems rather anti-social to me. I'll repeat myself: don't be a terminally credulous dingbat. > Thanks for your time. Pound sand, dude. Pound it hard. <eawckyegcy@yahoo.com> wrote in message > I don't expect a postive response from Hanks, though. Indeed, I find > it highly unlikely a "representative" of a major camera/optical company > is going to tell a potential customer anything of the sort (even if it > was true -- which it is most certainly not). Nor will you get one. I don't comply to the demands of sniveling cowards who hide behind Usenet anonymity while spewing their filth. Should Brian or Angus request more detail, I would be happy to provide it. Walt ><eawckyegcy@yahoo.com> wrote in message >> I don't expect a postive response from Hanks, though. Indeed, I find [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >Walt Walt, just killfile the troll and save your bloodpressure <grin> Drifter "I've been here, I've been there..." > Walt, just killfile the troll and save your bloodpressure <grin> > > Drifter > "I've been here, I've been there..." Best idea yet. It's done. Walt > <eawckyegcy@yahoo.com> wrote in message > > I don't expect a postive response from Hanks, though. Indeed, I find [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Nor will you get one. Didn't I say I didn't expect one? (Your reading comprehension problems are showing again). In any event, I couldn't care less: it's your (unlikely, stupid, irrational) claim, not mine. > I don't comply to the demands of sniveling cowards > who hide behind Usenet anonymity while spewing their filth. The truth is filth? Curious. > Should Brian or Angus request more detail, I would be happy to provide it. Prediction: no real substantiation (a name, a phone number, other witnesses, etc), just vague assurances. > Hi, > five reason to choise Nikon digital reflex and five reason to choise Canon > digital reflex ... > if you wont five reason to choise other. > Milena 1/ If you like Nikon, buy Nikon 2/ If you like Nikon, buy Nikon 3/ If you like Nikon, buy Nikon 4/ If you like Nikon, buy Nikon 5/ If you like Nikon, buy Nikon 1/ If you like Canon, buy Canon 2/ If you like Canon, buy Canon 3/ If you like Canon, buy Canon 4/ If you like Canon, buy Canon 5/ If you like Canon, buy Canon 1/ If you like X, buy X 2/ If you like X, buy X 3/ If you like X, buy X 4/ If you like X, buy X 5/ If you like X, buy X >Hi, >five reason to choise Nikon digital reflex and five reason to choise Canon >digital reflex ... I think the best I can do is quote "The Digital Shopping Dilemma" by Mike Johnston. (full article at http://www.photo.net/mjohnston/column5/ ) Begin quote... The Shopping Dilemma All over the internet, it seems like gearheads and equipment mavens are always industriously comparing the merits of three competing digital cameras. Doesn't matter which ones you pick six months ago it was the D100, S2, and D60. Last year it was the Dimage 7, Sony F707, and Coolpix 5000. Next summer it will be the 10D, *ist D, and S3. The momentous question always is, Which One Shall I Buy? Is it just me, or does this whole exercise strike anybody else as being faintly silly? In most cases, aren't all three of the cameras good ones? Aren't all three going to be old news within a year or two? Isn't it possible to find enthusiasts of all three models who love 'em? Beyond fastidious little differences, brand loyalty, and personal preference, what the heck difference does it make? Buy one and get to work. Is it really such a hard shopping decision to make when all three choices are so close to being equivalent that it's hard to detect major differences at all? Any given person could almost blindfold themselves, pick one at random, and within a few weeks of acclimatization they'd have gotten used to the camera and be making nice pictures. When shopping decisions are easy, it's because there's a clear distinction. Like Goldilocks, we can see that one's too this, one's too that, and one's just right. However, when shopping decisions get harder and harder, it's usually because all the choices are getting closer and closer together, and one choice doesn't jump out as being clearly better than the others. This should make shopping decisions less important. Or so I'd think. Strangely, though, what this makes people do is buckle down and work harder and harder to reach their conclusions and then it makes them doubly partisan and belligerent about the rightness of their choice. What's the point here? Ego? Arguing for the sake of argument? For Pete's sake. Here's the question: You're considering three competing cameras. They're all decent. Which one should you buy? And here's the right answer: one of 'em. ...end quote Drifter "I've been here, I've been there..." As we all know, one should not clutter the 'net with an "I agree!!" post. So I won't post anything... (O; > As we all know, one should not clutter the 'net with an "I agree!!" > post. So I won't post anything... OK, but if you HAD posted something it *may* have been in agreement, right? mike Yes! Dam. I wasn't going to post one of those.. (O; I, like Drifter, am often struck but the extraordinarily small differences in cameras, especially when it comes down to resolution and color variations, that are agonised over. Places like dpreview often get slammed for not having many (any?) cameras ever fall below `above average`, but when you compare the market leaders in DSLRs and prosumers, the differences really are pretty small. The true 'dogs' of cameras never even get reviewed, methinks. Go see ebay, and check out all the `10Mp` cameras being sold there, like `Megxon` and `SVP`....We need a few more reviews of *those*, to put things into perspective, I reckon... >Yes! > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >there, like `Megxon` and `SVP`....We need a few more reviews of >*those*, to put things into perspective, I reckon... Well, just for giggles I posted a "quickie review" of the Aiptek PocketCam X on Rec.Photo.Digital a few months ago. This camera http://www.aiptek.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=PKXCOM&Cat egory_Code=PD1 was purchased completely on impulse. I'm still trying to find the review so I can re-post it but a quick summary was roughly this... No focus to worry about. Flash was surprising (in that it had one, and it was pretty strong) Digital zoom (as expected) was horrifying movie mode (with an SD card for extra memory) was "decent" and sound was surprisingly good Still images were quirky with all the artifacting, etc. that you'd expect from interpolated sensor and plastic lens...but in good sunlight the camera takes better than expected pictures. Not really good mind you, but better than expected. In summary... I'm afraid to even set this camera on the same shelf with my 10d because I don't want to give it a complex. But the bottom line is that this camera is really fun to play with. I find myself using it for some shots -because- of the oddball behavior (like playing with pinhole cameras). ------------------------------------------------------------ There, a review from the OTHER end of the spectrum <grin> Drifter "I've been here, I've been there..." > too that, and one's just right. However, when shopping decisions get > harder and harder, it's usually because all the choices are getting > closer and closer together, and one choice doesn't jump out as being > clearly better than the others. This should make shopping decisions > less important. Or so I'd think. Most people serious about photography already have moderate to serious investments in lenses and flash systems for their film SLR's. So their brand choice is set unless they want to sell their equipment (at a loss) and buy all the new lenses and flashes to replace them (coupled with new sets of filters, cause the size isn't the same; ...etc). If I were building from scratch, It would likely be Canon for the simple reason that they seem to be well ahead of the pack in "35mm" size DSLR's. I don't like the Canon control layout (of the cameras I've used), but I'd get used to it. Cheers, Alan  Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch. > Is it just me, or does this whole exercise strike anybody else as > being faintly silly? In most cases, aren't all three of the cameras [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > three choices are so close to being equivalent that it's hard to > detect major differences at all? He tries to be humorous, but I disagree with his conclusion. When spending a couple of thousand dollars on a purchase, it is rather important to carefully choose a product that meets your needs. While there may not be major differences, it's often the little differences that matter. Have you seen the whining on one of the Nikon forums regarding the lack of a vertical grip, and lack of mirror lock-up, on/for the Nikon D70? Have you seen the Russian firmware hack to add mirror-lock-up to the EOS-300D. Do the lenses you want exist for the body you are buying? It's not difficult to narrow down your choices by the features you need, followed by a more subjective process to select from the few models that are left. What I do agree with, is that once some people make a specific choice, they get belligerant about the rightness of their choice, and get extremely upset if anyone points out issues with whatever they have chosen. Fortunately, not all that many people are like this, and on Usenet they are easily filtered out with the "Block Sender" feature. > While there may not be major differences, it's often the little differences > that matter. Have you seen the whining on one of the Nikon forums regarding > the lack of a vertical grip, and lack of mirror lock-up, on/for the Nikon > D70? Have you seen the Russian firmware hack to add mirror-lock-up to the > EOS-300D. Do the lenses you want exist for the body you are buying? Well, no, the real problem is when you go and try to ask other people for advice, and they are unwilling to accept that anyone might have different criteria than they do. For example, I have a D70 right now. I don't care if there's a vertical grip; I wouldn't get one if they offered it. I wish it *wasn't* built into the D2x, because I find it annoying, and I just hope that when shut off it doesn't get in the way. I never really used mirror lock-up when I had a camera (film) that did it, so that's not very important to me either. It's like when people are under the impression that anyone who is serious about photography, and certainly all professionals, always needs to shoot at ISO 1600. Heck, I've never even used my D70 at 800. So why in the world should ISO 1600 noise levels be a consideration for me? I wouldn't care if the camera didn't even *have* ISO 1600. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com > Hi, > five reason to choise Nikon digital reflex and five reason to choise Canon > digital reflex ... > if you wont five reason to choise other. > Milena Canon ------- 1. Ergonomics 2. Low-noise CMOS sensors 3. Upgrade path, since Canon offers cameras in all segments from entry-level to professional, while Nikon has no professional models yet. 4. Lens selection 5. Vertical grip available, even for entry-level, not the case on Nikon D70 6. Canon U.S. will repair Canon products, no matter where they are purchased. Nikon ------- 1. Nikon hasn't changed the F mount like Canon changed from FD to EOS 2. Nikon has better flash attachments 3. More used lenses out on the market, since Nikon has been building F mount lenses for so long 4. 802.11 wireless option on some models 5. 1.5 crop factor on their consumer and prosumer models, versus 1.6 crop factor for Canon on their consumer and prosumer models (unfortunately, Nikon hasn't come up with a smaller crop factor for a semi-professional or professional model). |
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.