 |
 | 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 / November 2006Canon!! Wake up!!!!
As a Canon guy, I must say that Nikon just set a good example for Canon by releasing a VERY extensive firmware upgrade for the D2X, D200 and D2Hs. Changes include major differences including more ISO choices, menu changes, and more functionality to buttons. Look here if you're curious: http://www.dpreview.com/news/0610/06100301nikonfirmware.asp So to Canon: ALL I ASK is that you give the ONE button on my 5D that I've never EVER pushed...some choices in functionality!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What button?? -Why, it's the useless "PRINT" button!!!! AAARRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Canon!! Are you listening????????????????? With the flick of your software wrist, you could make that button programmable. Do it!!!!!!!!! Sheesh. -M²  SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson > As a Canon guy, I must say that Nikon just set a good example for Canon by > releasing a VERY extensive firmware upgrade for the D2X, D200 and D2Hs. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Sheesh. You should get a new keyboard, your ! and ? key seem to be out-of-order... ;-) Also check your caps lock key... SignatureJørn Dahl-Stamnes http://www.dahl-stamnes.net/Foto/ > You should get a new keyboard, your ! and ? key seem to be > out-of-order... ;-) Also check your caps lock key... Mark's still having difficulties grasping the concept that he can turn "IS" ON/OFF. Please don't confuse him by showing him all them new fangled buttons on a keyboard. Rita >> You should get a new keyboard, your ! and ? key seem to be >> out-of-order... ;-) Also check your caps lock key... [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > ON/OFF. Please don't confuse him by showing him all them new fangled > buttons on a keyboard. Ahhhh... so that's what the "IS ON/OFF" button on my lenses do... ;-) SignatureJørn Dahl-Stamnes http://www.dahl-stamnes.net/Foto/ >>> You should get a new keyboard, your ! and ? key seem to be >>> out-of-order... ;-) Also check your caps lock key... [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Ahhhh... so that's what the "IS ON/OFF" button on my lenses do... ;-) LOL! If mine ever decides to break I hope it breaks in the "OFF" position. Rita > As a Canon guy, I must say that Nikon just set a good example for Canon by > releasing a VERY extensive firmware upgrade for the D2X, D200 and D2Hs. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Sheesh. Gimme a N. Gimme a I. Gimme a K. Gimme a break! Do you really think that Canon are interested in firmware upgrades when they can sell you a 6D with a programmable buton instead? It looks to me like the race for market share is taking a new turn. Signaturewww.nikongear.com Share, learn, win. > Gimme a break! Do you really think that Canon are interested in > firmware upgrades when they can sell you a 6D with a programmable > buton instead? What's wrong with a 6D? It's about time for it to hit the shelf since the 5D is passed its "Sell By" date. Rita Rita ? Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote: >> Gimme a break! Do you really think that Canon are interested in >> firmware upgrades when they can sell you a 6D with a programmable >> buton instead? > > What's wrong with a 6D? It's about time for it to hit the shelf since the > 5D is passed its "Sell By" date. My God ... it seems as if the 5D just came out. I think photography is being corrupted by the digital marketplace. It used to be such a point of pride to use the same camera for many years ... not it is a race to see who has the biggest megapixel. Sheesh ... I just love taking pictures and I still use film more than digital [I don't worry about my slides being obsoleted by bigger slides]. May the F100 live forever! SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1 >>> Gimme a break! Do you really think that Canon are interested in >>> firmware upgrades when they can sell you a 6D with a programmable [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > about my slides being obsoleted by bigger slides]. May the F100 live > forever! See! You were already bitten by the upgrade bug long ago and bought that damned new fangled F100 when we were out there suffering with our old obsolete FE. I must say that the old FE is still percolating and going strong. I'll never sell that body. I did sell all my Canon gear so I'm now officially Canonless. Rita > Rita ? Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > film more than digital [I don't worry about my slides being obsoleted by > bigger slides]. May the F100 live forever! 1st I still love my F100, and the 4x5, 8x10 and 6x6. But there really needs to be a 14 mp camera in the sub three thousand range for me to stop using 120 film for commercial stuff altogether. Also no dusting the camera and FF sensing would be nice although any rectangular box works,...including my current aps size sensor. SignatureReality-Is finding that perfect picture and never looking back. www.gregblankphoto.com : > Gimme a break! Do you really think that Canon are interested in : > firmware upgrades when they can sell you a 6D with a programmable : > buton instead? : : What's wrong with a 6D? It's about time for it to hit the shelf since the : 5D is passed its "Sell By" date. oh no it hasn't. There is yet to be a rival machine from anyone in this market segment. It still has a specification that can hold its own. >> What's wrong with a 6D? It's about time for it to hit the shelf >> since the 5D is passed its "Sell By" date. > > oh no it hasn't. There is yet to be a rival machine from anyone in > this market segment. It still has a specification that can hold its > own. True, but it doesn't come stock with an adapter that allows you to use Nikon lenses with full function on it like the 6D will. Seriously, if Canon made a FF body that would allow 100% full functionality with Nikon lenses they would really have a winner. The old obsolete D2x will be up on eBay in a New York minute. Rita : >> What's wrong with a 6D? It's about time for it to hit the shelf : >> since the 5D is passed its "Sell By" date. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] : would really have a winner. The old obsolete D2x will be up on eBay in a : New York minute. Canon would prefer it if you bought canon lenses. Rita Ä Berkowitz skrev: > True, but it doesn't come stock with an adapter that allows you to use Nikon > lenses with full function on it like the 6D will. Seriously, if Canon made > a FF body that would allow 100% full functionality with Nikon lenses they > would really have a winner. They would, indeed. The reason that they don't is that the profit margin of DSLR:s is pretty slim. The lenses is where the money is. Now, this commercial logic of course wouldn't be relevant for a third party creating such an adapter. It would be a bit more difficult for a third party, having to reverse engineer both the Canon and the Nikon setup, but for instance Sigma should have large parts iof this knowledge in-house. Such an adapter would need to contain a competent chip, of course, as a third party can't influence the firmware of a camera body. It's only a question of how much the average advanced Nikon user would be prepared to shell out for the combined cost of a 3D and such a converter. After all, most of us Canon users lusting for the 5D shun it based of the cost of the body alone. Jan Böhme Mark² (lowest even number here) skrev: > So to Canon: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > What button?? > -Why, it's the useless "PRINT" button!!!! Who needs Canon when we have Russian hackers? Only, where is Vasia now when we need him? Jan Böhme >As a Canon guy, I must say that Nikon just set a good example for Canon by >releasing a VERY extensive firmware upgrade for the D2X, D200 and D2Hs. >Changes include major differences including more ISO choices, menu changes, >and more functionality to buttons. Mark, Please don't ask Canon to copy Nikon, or the next thing we know they will be charging a fortune for their RAW processing software instead of giving it away free (and locking it up so no-one else can decode it either). If I tried doing that to clients I think I would be in serious doo-doo (and have no clients). David SignatureDavid Littlewood >> As a Canon guy, I must say that Nikon just set a good example for >> Canon by releasing a VERY extensive firmware upgrade for the D2X, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > David Noooo... I merely want them to take this cue: Firmware is firmware...rather than HARDware...for good reason: You can CHANGE it and IMPROVE it...and USE it to partially un-do silly decisions. Canon is soundly kicking Nikon's tail in many areas, but this is one aspect where Canon is just being stupid. I'd even be happier if there was no button thre at all..if for no other reason than my annoying with stupid things. :) SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson > Canon is soundly kicking Nikon's tail in many areas Really? Doesn't seem that way to me. Nikon's sales figures look pretty healthy and everyday I see more and more of them flying off the shelves and into the hands of appreciating owners. Signaturewww.nikongear.com Share, learn, win. >> Canon is soundly kicking Nikon's tail in many areas > > Really? Doesn't seem that way to me. Nikon's sales figures look pretty > healthy and everyday I see more and more of them flying off the > shelves and into the hands of appreciating owners. Who said anything about that? -Not me. SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson > >> Canon is soundly kicking Nikon's tail in many areas > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Who said anything about that? > -Not me. Well, then where are Canon "kicking Nikons tail"? Fact is they aren't. Nikon has been making some pretty big strides of late, and the only bragging rights Canon can currently lay claim to are that they have a 35mm sized sensor in two of their cameras. Pity that they can't make decent enough wide-angle lenses to take advantage of it though. Looks like more and more Canon users are starting to buy 17-35mm lenses with the name Nikon on them. God help them if Zeiss take an interest in the EOS mount. DO didn't take off. ECF didn't take off. IS has been copied (and in some cases bettered) USM has been copied. Where is Canon's answer to the D200? How about the 200-400mm f/4? D2Xs? SB-800? CLS? Can you use FD glass on an EOS? Who's tail is being kicked, Mark? Signaturewww.nikongear.com Share, learn, win. > Well, then where are Canon "kicking Nikons tail"? They've marketed the first "IS" placebo WA lens for people that can't comprehend that "IS" is totally ineffective on lenses bellow 50mm on an FF sensor. > Fact is they aren't. Nikon has been making some pretty big strides of > late, and the only bragging rights Canon can currently lay claim to > are that they have a 35mm sized sensor in two of their cameras. And if Nikon doesn't introduce an FF body shortly there are going to be a lot more new Canon owners using Nikon glass. > Pity that they can't make decent enough wide-angle lenses to take > advantage of it though. Looks like more and more Canon users are > starting to buy 17-35mm lenses with the name Nikon on them. God help > them if Zeiss take an interest in the EOS mount. LOL! You got that right! And it's not only the 17-35. Once a Canon user throws a Nikkor on the old 5D it's over with and they quickly realize they made a mistake buying Canon glass. In fairness, if Nikon keeps up their current trend of putting out these consumer grade DX lenses they will be in the same sinking boat as Canon. I would hate to see Nikon throw away their title of being the world leader in optics by following Canon's lead. > How about the 200-400mm f/4? If Canon can't get it right on the WA end how do you expect them to produce a legendary "Standard in zooms" like the 200-400? > Can you use FD glass on an EOS? Tell me about it! That was a really kick in the a.s for me since my small investment in FD lenses were useless when the EOS came out. Oh well, that's progress I guess? At least I got a couple bucks for them. > Who's tail is being kicked, Mark? I think he's still too busy scratching his tail on this "IS" thing to be worried about graduating up to the next level it being kicked. That's in his next semester. Rita Rita Ä Berkowitz skrev: > They've marketed the first "IS" placebo WA lens for people that can't > comprehend that "IS" is totally ineffective on lenses bellow 50mm on an FF > sensor. This is actually not true, as anyone who has owned a Panasonic FZ20 can attest. It's useless for fast-moving subjects, sure. But not all subjects are fast-moving. Lots of times, human beings aren't, for instance. With a bit of anticipation, it is perfectly possible to get a candid portrait at 1/10 without any discernible subject motion. If you can get rid of camera shake, that is. Maybe your technique is good enough for hand-holding at 35mm and 1/10 without IS, but mine certainly isn't. Jan Böhme [] > This is actually not true, as anyone who has owned a Panasonic FZ20 > can attest. It's useless for fast-moving subjects, sure. When the motion is predictable (such as a racing car in normal motion), the image stabilisation on the FZ20 works well when using the panning mode. David David J Taylor skrev: > [] > > This is actually not true, as anyone who has owned a Panasonic FZ20 > > can attest. It's useless for fast-moving subjects, sure. > When the motion is predictable (such as a racing car in normal motion), Predictable _and horizontal_, to be honest. > the image stabilisation on the FZ20 works well when using the panning > mode. I suppose. But I've never had either much opportunity, nor much desire, to shoot racing cars, and I can't really think of anything else shootworthy that would require horizontal panning, so I've actually never used the panning mode on my FZ20. But you're right; there is a panning mode for the Panny OIS. Jan Böhme > And if Nikon doesn't introduce an FF body shortly there are going to be a > lot more new Canon owners using Nikon glass. I don't know if it is really worth their while to develop a FF sensor when the DX is working as well as it does. Many people believe that the R&D money would be better spent developing improved DX lenses than trying to re-invent the wheel with a full frame sensor that isn't quite right. If Leica couldn't go bigger than 1.3x then I am satisfied that going any bigger frame-wise is a major compromise. Besides, the best part of an older style lens is usually in the centre, so DX is cropping out the less-than-perfect bits. > LOL! You got that right! And it's not only the 17-35. Once a Canon user > throws a Nikkor on the old 5D it's over with and they quickly realize they > made a mistake buying Canon glass. In fairness, if Nikon keeps up their > current trend of putting out these consumer grade DX lenses they will be in > the same sinking boat as Canon. I would hate to see Nikon throw away their > title of being the world leader in optics by following Canon's lead. Gotta disagree with you there. I think DX lenses are pretty good, certainly a lot better than Canon's EF-S efforts. > > Who's tail is being kicked, Mark? > > I think he's still too busy scratching his tail on this "IS" thing to be > worried about graduating up to the next level it being kicked. That's in > his next semester. Mark is a "master" of hidden innuendo, especially when it comes to Canon vs. Nikon threads. Every now and then its fun to expose him. Signaturewww.nikongear.com Share, learn, win. > Mark is a "master" of hidden innuendo, especially when it comes to > Canon vs. Nikon threads. Every now and then its fun to expose him. Oh brother. SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson > > Mark is a "master" of hidden innuendo, especially when it comes to > > Canon vs. Nikon threads. Every now and then its fun to expose him. > > Oh brother. What? You denying that? Where are Canon kicking Nikon's tail? Make up your mind... >>> Mark is a "master" of hidden innuendo, especially when it comes to >>> Canon vs. Nikon threads. Every now and then its fun to expose him. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Where are Canon kicking Nikon's tail? Make up your mind... You keep cutting the quote. I said "...in many areas." Here are a few of those areas: -IS lens offerings and also a huge IS development head-start -Lower noise, especially at high ISO (this is now beyond dispute, so save your breath) -Full frame (Nikon is a zedro here) -Market Share But why is that such a big deal to say? This comes in a thread...posted by **ME**...that gripes rather loudly to express annoyance with the maker of my gear. If you're giong to try to insist that I'm bias, blah blah blah... Give it a rest. You're barking up the wrong tree. -Mark² PS- I'm done walking down this road with you, Dallas. If you want the last word, be my guest, but I'm not going to get into a brand war with you. My comments were LIMITED in scope, and included very clear limitation which you ignored in your attempts to paint me as something I'm not. Again... Give it a rest, and while you're at it, READ what I write before jumping to your same old tired reactionary snipes. SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson > Here are a few of those areas: > > -IS lens offerings and also a huge IS development head-start So what? KM/Sony has more IS capability than Canon or Nikon. > -Lower noise, especially at high ISO (this is now beyond dispute, so save > your breath) You want to see some of the 1600 shots I took with the D80 today. Will post when I can. I think you may want to retract that. > -Full frame (Nikon is a zedro here) Read earlier post. > -Market Share Toyotas are better than BMW's too, I suppose? You forgot about Canons' wonderful TTL flash (as demonstrated by your stark images of that hawk in the tree)? Leading the way there, aren't they... > But why is that such a big deal to say? > This comes in a thread...posted by **ME**...that gripes rather loudly to [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > it a rest, and while you're at it, READ what I write before jumping to your > same old tired reactionary snipes. Listen smartass, don't try to worm your way out of this one (again). YOU are the one who made the inflammotory remarks about Canon kicking Nikon's tail. Not me. I just feel it is my civic duty to point out your constant erroneous slaverings. > You forgot about Canons' wonderful TTL flash (as demonstrated by your > stark images of that hawk in the tree)? Leading the way there, aren't > they... Whoa Nelly!!! Let's be fair about this. This sounds like the same old excuse of blaming the gun for murder and not the nut behind it! We have already established that Mark screwed the pooch on this one by demonstrating piss poor skills. Personally, I can't see blaming Canon for some moron's inability to properly use a flash. I have seen superb images produced with Canon flash, but not by Mark. Rita >>Here are a few of those areas: >> >>-IS lens offerings and also a huge IS development head-start > > So what? KM/Sony has more IS capability than Canon or Nikon. How so? How well can sensor movement counteract the vibration of a 500 or 600 mm lens with stacked 1.4 and 2x TCs? The rates and distances are too large. Canons systems works well. Nikon doesn't have VR at all in super telephotos. >>-Lower noise, especially at high ISO (this is now beyond dispute, so save >>your breath) > > You want to see some of the 1600 shots I took with the D80 today. Will > post when I can. I think you may want to retract that. Mark is correct. Look at Figure 6 at: http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/does.pixel.size.matter to see the Nikon D200 unity gain ISO is the lowest of the DSLRs tested (D80 should be similar, ~same sensor). Note the D50 is up there with the 5D in unity gain ISO, because it has a large pixel size. Then look at Figure 7 and see the dynamic range. The lower dynamic range of the D200 is due to smaller pixels and higher read noise. Full reports on sensor performance of some canon and Nikon cameras are here: http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/index.html#sensor_analysis The Canon DSLRs have the lowest noise measured so far (see also references on these pages to other analyses). Read noise of cameras like the 20D, 5D and 1D Mark II are below 4 electrons, whereas the Nikon D70 = 6.3 electrons, D200 = 7.4 electrons, and D50 = 7.5 electrons. >>-Full frame (Nikon is a zedro here) > > Read earlier post. Pixel size matters. As megapixels go up, sensor size must go up, or total performance drops (signal-to-noise ratio, dynamic range, and high iso performance). Roger > Full reports on sensor performance of some canon and Nikon > cameras are here: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > whereas the Nikon D70 = 6.3 electrons, D200 = 7.4 electrons, > and D50 = 7.5 electrons. Yes, and some Canon compacts have also spectacularly low read noise, it seems: The S70 also has a read noise of 4 electrons! So clearly, this low read noise a) is not a property of the DSLR sensors only, b) cannot be all that expensive to achieve. I find all this rather puzzling. >> Here are a few of those areas: >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Toyotas are better than BMW's too, I suppose? Again, you pull back to old arguments that you NEVER could seem to get right. I remember that, and I remember (again) that my comment about Toyotas vs. BMWs was limited ENTIRELY to reliability statistics which are not disputable. But in that case, just as have done again, you miss the limiting comments and see only global statements which were NEVER made. This is a pattern with you, Dallas, and it leads to entirely unnecessary sniping on your part. > You forgot about Canons' wonderful TTL flash (as demonstrated by your > stark images of that hawk in the tree)? Leading the way there, aren't > they... A-Gain... You can't seem to compartmentalize opinions. I don't feel any compulsion to arguet ath Nikon has a great flash system. -I think it's better than Canon. Great! Good for Nikon. I feel no compulsion >> But why is that such a big deal to say? >> This comes in a thread...posted by **ME**...that gripes rather [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Nikon's tail. Not me. I just feel it is my civic duty to point out > your constant erroneous slaverings. Oh for crying out loud, Dallas. You have now...officially...returned to your former ways. Very disappointing. I am very serious when I say that you seem to literally have a difficulty with seeing comments within a limited scope. You regularly ignore important limiters (such as the Toyota comments, which were ENTIRELY limited to ONE aspect alone--reliability statistics which are irrefutable) and see only one extreme or another. I can't fix that for you. I also can't fix that you are remain unbelievably hyper-sensitive with regard to brand--to an extent that you see everything as an assault. Somehow or other, you seem to have missed the ONLY thing I've done which could be seen as a "slam" against a brand--and that...was my slam on C-A-N-O-N. TOTALLY unnecessary flack from you, Dallas. SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson > > Toyotas are better than BMW's too, I suppose? > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > This is a pattern with you, Dallas, and it leads to entirely unnecessary > sniping on your part. You somehow seem to think that because Canon has a bigger market share, they must be better cameras on the whole. Right? Reliability has nothing to do with this argument at all. > > You forgot about Canons' wonderful TTL flash (as demonstrated by your > > stark images of that hawk in the tree)? Leading the way there, aren't [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > compulsion to arguet ath Nikon has a great flash system. -I think it's > better than Canon. Great! Good for Nikon. I feel no compulsion But...but...you said that Canon was kicking Nikon's tail in so many areas! What, are you squirming away from that statement now? > Oh for crying out loud, Dallas. You have now...officially...returned to > your former ways. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > are remain unbelievably hyper-sensitive with regard to brand--to an extent > that you see everything as an assault. My old ways? Pish! You're the one at fault here, Mark. You make an inflammatory statement about Nikon and you can't back it up. Then you try and twist it around to make it look like I am unreasonable, biased and (dig this) "hyper-sensitive"!!! LOL! > Somehow or other, you seem to have missed the ONLY thing I've done which > could be seen as a "slam" against a brand--and that...was my slam on > C-A-N-O-N. > > TOTALLY unnecessary flack from you, Dallas. I saw your comments as the irrelevant flatulence they usually are, Mark. >>> Toyotas are better than BMW's too, I suppose? >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > share, they must be better cameras on the whole. Right? Reliability > has nothing to do with this argument at all. I don't even know what you're talking about any more. Reliability refers only to your silly move to bring up a past fit you threw over my citing of automobile reliablility statistics. >>> You forgot about Canons' wonderful TTL flash (as demonstrated by >>> your stark images of that hawk in the tree)? Leading the way there, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > But...but...you said that Canon was kicking Nikon's tail in so many > areas! What, are you squirming away from that statement now? Some areas. Some. Read. Think. Discern. I started a thread to gripe about an area where Nikon has shown Canon the way. >> Oh for crying out loud, Dallas. You have >> now...officially...returned to your former ways. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > My old ways? Pish! You're the one at fault here, Mark. You make an > inflammatory statement about Nikon and you can't back it up. Back up what? Lower high-ISO noise? Roger has backed that up. Market share? That's just a fact. More IS offerings? About as verifiable a fact as one can have. Full frame with no response from Nikon? Undisputable. IS lens offerings? Equally irrefutable. What is there to back up? >Then you > try and twist it around to make it look like I am unreasonable, biased > and (dig this) "hyper-sensitive"!!! LOL! Um... ??? >> Somehow or other, you seem to have missed the ONLY thing I've done >> which could be seen as a "slam" against a brand--and that...was my [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I saw your comments as the irrelevant flatulence they usually are, > Mark. You know, Dallas...One would think that a person as Canon-worshipping as you like to pretend I am would refuse to start a thread with such a negative statement about Canon. -Where you've taken things from there is really very strange. SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson > I don't even know what you're talking about any more. Reliability refers > only to your silly move to bring up a past fit you threw over my citing of The only person dredging up the past is you. I used the comparison in an attempt to show you that dominant market share does not imply superior products. Unless of course you actally believe that Toyotas are better than BMW's. > Some areas. > Some. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I started a thread to gripe about an area where Nikon has shown Canon the > way. LOL! I *can* read and your words said "Canon is soundly kicking Nikons tail in MANY areas." "Many" does not equal "Some". Follow your own advice, chump. Read. Think. Discern. > Back up what? > Lower high-ISO noise? > Roger has backed that up. How often do you shoot at 1600 ISO? Why didn't you use it on your hawk pics??? Was there a problem? > Market share? > That's just a fact. Toyota. BMW. > More IS offerings? > About as verifiable a fact as one can have. Nikon has VR where it matters. Photographers don't handhold super-telephotos. > Full frame with no response from Nikon? > Undisputable. You're implying that full frame is somehow better than DX? The best part of a lens is the centre section, so how is it better to retain the inferior edges of a full frame lens? > IS lens offerings? > Equally irrefutable. Saying the same thing twice doesn't add a quiver to your lot, Mark. > What is there to back up? Ah, so again you are implying that Canon is by far superior to Nikon. I guess you must really love that Toyota too. BTW, Canon is considerably behind in the IS stakes since any lens mounted onto a KM/Sony DSLR has AS. Even the old lenses. > Um... > ??? Yes, you do need to scratch away, chump. > You know, Dallas...One would think that a person as Canon-worshipping as you > like to pretend I am would refuse to start a thread with such a negative > statement about Canon. > -Where you've taken things from there is really very strange. Why do you feel the irresistable need to couple your claimed ambivilence on the brand front with statements like "Canon is soundly kicking Nikon's tail in many areas"? Either you are a lunatic who can't see sh.t from shinola, or you're just trolling away, as usual. I'm not afraid to say that Canon is a sh.t company, forcing sh.t products that have a huge propensity for failure on its market. I know this because I put up with their crap for over two years. I formed my opinion of these rogues the hard way - in the field using their "superior" technology. You, OTOH, have never had the privilege of using anything else. You rely on the opinons of "experts" on the internet to make your buying decisions for you. Then you cry foul when things don't go the way you would like them to (the very title of this ridiculous thread). Wake up and smell the world outside the bubble. >> I don't even know what you're talking about any more. Reliability >> refers only to your silly move to bring up a past fit you threw over [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > "Many" does not equal "Some". Follow your own advice, chump. Read. > Think. Discern. I give up. You are so overwhelmingly defensive that it's just not worth talking to you. Who the hell cares if I note "many" or "some" other than an obsessive, person such as yourself. Let's see...is "many" = to 5 or 6 and "some" = to 3 or 4? Uhhh... Who cares??? >> Back up what? >> Lower high-ISO noise? >> Roger has backed that up. > > How often do you shoot at 1600 ISO? Why didn't you use it on your hawk > pics??? Was there a problem? Been all through that. If you didn't understand then...I won't try to get it through your thick head again. >> Market share? >> That's just a fact. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Nikon has VR where it matters. Photographers don't handhold > super-telephotos. Some of you insisted that IS/VR doesn't matter wide...now you pretend it doesn't matter on super-tele. :) >> Full frame with no response from Nikon? >> Undisputable. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Ah, so again you are implying that Canon is by far superior to Nikon. The little man in yourhead said that...not me. > I guess you must really love that Toyota too. The little man in your head was talking. > BTW, Canon is considerably behind in the IS stakes since any lens > mounted onto a KM/Sony DSLR has AS. Even the old lenses. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > kicking Nikon's tail in many areas"? Either you are a lunatic who > can't see sh.t from shinola, or you're just trolling away, as usual. OK. I'll add that Nikon has kicked Canon as well. Their flash system is better, and so is their metering system in my opinion. -But that won't matter to you and your obsessive-compulsive blathering. > I'm not afraid to say that Canon is a sh.t company, forcing sh.t > products that have a huge propensity for failure on its market. I know > this because I put up with their crap for over two years. I formed my > opinion of these rogues the hard way - in the field using their > "superior" technology. You got burned by Canon of South Africa, and it left a bad taste in your mouth. Because of your singular experience, you feel you are equipped to make sweeping statements. That's your right. It's everyone's right to feel however they please. Have a ball... > You, OTOH, have never had the privilege of using anything else. Wrong again. :) >You > rely on the opinons of "experts" on the internet to make your buying > decisions for you. I do? That's funny, because I never have. My first experience with IS was when I happened upon Canon's first IS lens whil traveling in Alaska. I was frustrated with shooting conditions that led to camera-shake blur, and stumbled upon Canon's now-primitive 75-300 IS. I bought it, and was very happy with the comparative results. The rest is history. :) >Then you cry foul when things don't go the way you > would like them to (the very title of this ridiculous thread). > > Wake up and smell the world outside the bubble. I really do feel that you have some mental difficulties, Dallas. -And that's no dig. Something compels you to carry on this way, and it's really rather concerning. But that aside... Why is it that you can call Canon a "sh.t company" and yet I can't gripe about a single aspect of their practices? Don't you detect just a wee bit of irony in that? Anyone reading your comments (save for a couple of simlarly handicapped folk) will see your comments and mental blind-spots for what they are. I'll leave it at that. SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson > I give up. You already promised that several replies back. > You are so overwhelmingly defensive that it's just not worth talking to you. > Who the hell cares if I note "many" or "some" other than an obsessive, > person such as yourself. > Let's see...is "many" = to 5 or 6 and "some" = to 3 or 4? > Uhhh... Who cares??? Say what you mean, and mean what you say. > > How often do you shoot at 1600 ISO? Why didn't you use it on your hawk > > pics??? Was there a problem? > > Been all through that. If you didn't understand then...I won't try to get > it through your thick head again. The poor shots came from a lack of both photographic and post processing technique. Your drawings on the sample shot carry hardly any relevance at all and serve merely as a diversionary tactic from the afore- mentioned lack of ability. > Some of you insisted that IS/VR doesn't matter wide...now you pretend it > doesn't matter on super-tele. > :) Do you hand hold 400, 500 and 600mm wide aperture lenses? If you do there's a problem with your approach. Those lenses are designed to be used on a tripod with a skilled person behind the camera. A huge number of the worlds best wildlife photographers have been doing fine without IS or VR for decades. Why? Because they have that one thing that sets them apart from the ordinary hack who buys his stuff with as many user- aids as he can afford: talent. > >> What is there to back up? > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > The little man in your head was talking. You still haven't backed up your claim that "Canon is soundly kicking Nikon's tail in many areas". So far all we've heard about is full frame sensors, low noise at high ISO and IS lenses. Three things that are, to be quite frank, non-issues. > OK. I'll add that Nikon has kicked Canon as well. > Their flash system is better, and so is their metering system in my opinion. > -But that won't matter to you and your obsessive-compulsive blathering. Would you not also conceed that those two areas are profoundly more important to photographers than any of the so-called "advantages" you say that Canon holds over Nikon? > You got burned by Canon of South Africa, and it left a bad taste in your > mouth. All the products come from the same place, Mark. They don't get built in South Africa. > Because of your singular experience, you feel you are equipped to make > sweeping statements. No sweeping statement, just the truth. > > You, OTOH, have never had the privilege of using anything else. > > Wrong again. > :) Well then. Enlighten me. Minolta SRT 101? Sony Mavica? > > Wake up and smell the world outside the bubble. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > "sh.t company" and yet I can't gripe about a single aspect of their > practices? Because during the course of your griping, you unfairly disparage the other company with no reliable frame of relevance. None at all. > Don't you detect just a wee bit of irony in that? Oh, you have no idea. > Anyone reading your comments (save for a couple of simlarly handicapped > folk) will see your comments and mental blind-spots for what they are. > I'll leave it at that. Oh my God. The last refuge of the defeated college debating champion is to end with a snipe at the intellectual capacity of the opponent. Very nice. Signaturewww.nikongear.com Share, learn, win. >> I give up. > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > any relevance at all and serve merely as a diversionary tactic from > the afore- mentioned lack of ability. You know, Dallas, there is a very consistent pattern in your posts, and you've exhibited it once again. -That is your willingness to personally slam my photography skills. This is something I try very hard to avoid--even in cases where there is clear evidence that someone' work is terrible. I would highly recommend that you try to tone that down a bit. I can take it, but many others can't. As to my processing abilities... I make no claims of Photoshop expertise. On the other hand, you haven't ever grasped the situation that scene presented. The file you fiddled with was only marginally different than mine, and surely didn't rise to any breakthrough. >> Some of you insisted that IS/VR doesn't matter wide...now you >> pretend it doesn't matter on super-tele. >> :) > > Do you hand hold 400, 500 and 600mm wide aperture lenses? Has it occurred to you that monopod-mounted lenses in this range benefit from IS/VR? I can assure you that it has occurred to the rest of the photographic world. >If you do > there's a problem with your approach. Those lenses are designed to be [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > that sets them apart from the ordinary hack who buys his stuff with > as many user- aids as he can afford: talent. Yep. And wars were fought successfully before there were guns... And busnesses were successful before we had computers... Blah blah blah... >>>> What is there to back up? >>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > frame sensors, low noise at high ISO and IS lenses. Three things that > are, to be quite frank, non-issues. Who the hell cares? >> OK. I'll add that Nikon has kicked Canon as well. >> Their flash system is better, and so is their metering system in my [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > important to photographers than any of the so-called "advantages" you > say that Canon holds over Nikon? It's very important to you to establish Nikon. Why is that OK for you to do? Personally, it doesn't bother me one whit to say that I think Nikon's flash system is better. I don't feel threatened, upset or anything other than having a thought that I hope Canon will improve so that I'll benefit at some point. To me, this really isn't personal--which is a distinct difference between you and I. You respond to less-than-stellar-comments about Nikon just as though I was talking about your mother. That honestly bizarre to me. >> You got burned by Canon of South Africa, and it left a bad taste in >> your mouth. > > All the products come from the same place, Mark. They don't get built > in South Africa. Customer service is largely determined by location, and trends within different branches within a company. For example: Canon USA will honor FULL WARRANTY...even on imported or "grey market" Canon products. This works in the US only, and not the other way round. You do not enjoy such service in S.A. any more than the folks in Europe do. As far as I know, this is unique to Canon USA. There are distinct differences, whether your limited S.A. Canon service experience tell you that or not. This is beyond dispute (though I wouldn't expect you to refrain anyway). Product is sometimes the issues, but often it is the >> Because of your singular experience, you feel you are equipped to >> make sweeping statements. > > No sweeping statement, just the truth. :) Case in point. >>> You, OTOH, have never had the privilege of using anything else. >> >> Wrong again. >> :) > > Well then. Enlighten me. Minolta SRT 101? Sony Mavica? My first 35mm camera was an Olympus SLR. Then a Nikon SLR I "inherited" from my brother. But I didn't really get into photography until I was given a Canon SLR. >>> Wake up and smell the world outside the bubble. >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Because during the course of your griping, you unfairly disparage the > other company with no reliable frame of relevance. None at all. I think Nikon will survive in spite of my horrible, unthinkable mention that there are many areas where Canon has bested them, or "kicked their tail." Surely they'll survive the onslought...even without your inane blathering and slamming of my photos...and slamming of anything I do or say. You are free to continue, of course, but I frankly think you're taking backward steps, rather than making Nikon look better as a result of these exchanges. There is no doubt that you make yourself look petty, angry and overly reactionary. >> Don't you detect just a wee bit of irony in that? > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > is to end with a snipe at the intellectual capacity of the opponent. > Very nice. We all have mental blind-spots. Don't get your knickers in a knot. You are clearly overly sensitive to anything I say, and/or anything that you feel insults your moth--I mean--your camera company of choice. There have been times where I've actually reserved my comments because I felt sorry for you. You seem entirely unaware of yourself, and unable to refrain from going down your same angrily defensive path. You may choose to continue, but I wish you wouldn't. Eventually, you'll convince me to kill-file you, but for the time being...I must be bored...because otherwise, arguing with you is about as contructive and hopeful as arguing with a sponge. SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson > You know, Dallas, there is a very consistent pattern in your posts, and > you've exhibited it once again. > -That is your willingness to personally slam my photography skills. This is > something I try very hard to avoid--even in cases where there is clear > evidence that someone' work is terrible. I would highly recommend that you > try to tone that down a bit. I can take it, but many others can't. You do not speak for anyone other than yourself. Remember that. I find it amusing that you pass yourself off as a knowledgeable photographer, using the best stuff you can buy, yet you exhibit no discernable competence in matters technical or artistic. When given advice on how you could improve your work you reject it totally out of hand. You would not make a good student. There is also this unwavering grandeur present in your posts which seems to indicate that you know it all and that your word is final. When you're challenged you get defensive and then when finally backed into a corner you resort to childish insults. > As to my processing abilities... I make no claims of Photoshop expertise. > On the other hand, you haven't ever grasped the situation that scene > presented. The file you fiddled with was only marginally different than > mine, and surely didn't rise to any breakthrough. On the contrary, it was considerably improved and yes, I did grasp the situation quite well. Your pre-occupation with trying to expose for both the highlights and shadows is what blew your pictures. You can't do them both, unless you are pretty proficient at PP. > Has it occurred to you that monopod-mounted lenses in this range benefit > from IS/VR? > I can assure you that it has occurred to the rest of the photographic world. Monopods are used by sports photographers who need to move along the sidelines constantly. If I told you that most professional sports photographers I know switch off their IS/VR when shooting field sports, would you be surprised? Also, most of them never take more than a 400mm lens to a game. Any photographer who has half a brain will tell you that there is no substitute for a good tripod and ball head. Wildlife photography with a monopod? Er...I don't think so. > > You still haven't backed up your claim that "Canon is soundly kicking > > Nikon's tail in many areas". So far all we've heard about is full > > frame sensors, low noise at high ISO and IS lenses. Three things that > > are, to be quite frank, non-issues. > > Who the hell cares? I care! When people who don't know what they're talking about start sprouting bollocks, I feel it is only common courtesy to point that out. When those same people want to engage in a full scale argument that they simply cannot win, I'm game! > It's very important to you to establish Nikon. > Why is that OK for you to do? > Personally, it doesn't bother me one whit to say that I think Nikon's flash > system is better. > I don't feel threatened, upset or anything other than having a thought that > I hope Canon will improve so that I'll benefit at some point. Your only hope of improvement lies not in the number of aides or technological advances any camera manufacturer might make, but in the possibility that someday you might be able to marry technical understanding with practical know-how. > To me, this really isn't personal--which is a distinct difference between > you and I. > You respond to less-than-stellar-comments about Nikon just as though I was > talking about your mother. > That honestly bizarre to me. Gotta take out the garbage every week too, you know. If you leave it lying around long enough it begins to stink up the place. > Customer service is largely determined by location, and trends within > different branches within a company. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > to refrain anyway). > Product is sometimes the issues, but often it is the Customer service has NOTHING to do with the fact that they make a lot of rubbish. How can customer service possibly explain the failure of a camera when it has been returned no fewer than three times for the same repair? How about two flash units that failed an equal number of times? Battery grips that drain the cells even when the camera is switched off? No, it can't be explained by any rationale other than the fact that companies who have the largest market share tend to be those who f.ck up the most. Companies with smaller market share tend to be those who try harder. > My first 35mm camera was an Olympus SLR. > Then a Nikon SLR I "inherited" from my brother. > But I didn't really get into photography until I was given a Canon SLR. Maybe you shoulda stuck with them. > I think Nikon will survive in spite of my horrible, unthinkable mention that > there are many areas where Canon has bested them, or "kicked their tail." [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > There is no doubt that you make yourself look petty, angry and overly > reactionary. Mark, you are so far removed from reality that its actually sad in a way. Just admit that you made a stupid comment and you don't know what got into you. > We all have mental blind-spots. Don't get your knickers in a knot. > You are clearly overly sensitive to anything I say, and/or anything that you [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > but for the time being...I must be bored...because otherwise, arguing with > you is about as contructive and hopeful as arguing with a sponge. Puh-leeze. Don't hold back! You've promised to KF me more times than I have returned faulty Canon merchandise! Signaturewww.nikongear.com Share, learn, win. >>You know, Dallas, there is a very consistent pattern in your posts, and >>you've exhibited it once again. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > advice on how you could improve your work you reject it totally out of > hand. You would not make a good student. Please drop it. This is no longer productive. Roger >>> You know, Dallas, there is a very consistent pattern in your posts, >>> and you've exhibited it once again. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Please drop it. This is no longer productive. Dallas seems to find some sort of purpose in constantly conveying how much he despises anything I do. My photography, for whatever it's worth--or not worth--brings me a lot of enjoyment and satisfaction. Folks who live only to verbally vomit up hateful commentary only make me appreciate things like photography even more. Photography is neither evil nor good. It simply captures a moment of life that I can remember and reflect on. Whether Dallas appreciates anything I do is of little consequence--save to remind me that in spite of my various deficiencies, I'm glad for who I am...and for who I am not. SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson > Dallas seems to find some sort of purpose in constantly conveying how much > he despises anything I do. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > consequence--save to remind me that in spite of my various deficiencies, I'm > glad for who I am...and for who I am not. Congratulations. You managed to avoid answering yet another pressing question about your posting habits by diverting attention away from the issue at hand and onto my psyche. You must be so proud of yourself. But seeing as you brought it up, perhaps you might like to point out where anything I have ever posted about you on this board, or the other board, could possibly be interpreted as "despises anything I do"? It sounds like you have a major inferiority complex when you make statements like that. What is there about you to possibly despise? Tell me how my offering you constructive criticism on your photography and PP skills can be interpreted as "vomiting up hateful commentary"? I take the time to re-edit two of your flash-bashed pictures and you take offense. I'm sorry, Mark. Time for you to just grow up. Signaturewww.nikongear.com Share, learn, win. >> Dallas seems to find some sort of purpose in constantly conveying >> how much he despises anything I do. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > I'm sorry, Mark. Time for you to just grow up. Bye, Dallas. Please don't start e-mailing me like you did the last time I kill-filed you... SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson > > Congratulations. You managed to avoid answering yet another pressing > > question about your posting habits by diverting attention away from [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Please don't start e-mailing me like you did the last time I kill-filed > you... LOL! What a wally! You were the one emailing me! Remember your long, unsolicited "I'm actually a nice guy" email? I'm sorry I replied to it now because like everything else you try to twist things around to make it look like you're a saint and the rest of us are clambering for your attention. Look inside yourself, Mark. You are a pompous, arrogant, over-privileged know-it-all who is not big enough to admit when he's wrong. The first step towards change is admitting your own faults. Signaturewww.nikongear.com Share, learn, win. >>> You know, Dallas, there is a very consistent pattern in your posts, >>> and you've exhibited it once again. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Roger BTW, Roger-- I finally got hold of a 13x19 "book" of sorts for larger prints...the ITOYA "Art Protfolio Professional "Presentation Book." Is that one you referred to? There are several significant differences between this particular one...and the lesser ITOYA books I had found (called simply "Art Portfolio"). First, the cover is far more classy looking (padded, leather-like, more rigid). Also, before the first page, there is a thick, semi-transparent plastic page that protects the first actual image sleeve. Finally, the sleeves themselves are MILES ahead of the lesser line. In the lesser line, the sleeves are rather cloudy and grey, where these nicer sleeves are as clear as glass. Much nicer. Anyway... Thanks for the input on that. I'll probably post about it since there seemed to be people interested in my hunt for such a book. I still wish there were even nicer books--perhaps with real leather and more heavily bound, but I'm pretty happy with these. -Mark² SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson > >>You know, Dallas, there is a very consistent pattern in your posts, and > >>you've exhibited it once again. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Please drop it. This is no longer productive. Interesting. I didn't know they had moderators on usenet. Signaturewww.nikongear.com Share, learn, win. >>>> You know, Dallas, there is a very consistent pattern in your posts, and >>>> you've exhibited it once again. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Interesting. I didn't know they had moderators on usenet. Both you and Mark should be sent to your rooms without supper. Naughty boys, whining on and on about each other. For the love of Mike, and he got fed up and left the NG days ago.... Signaturelsmft >>>>> You know, Dallas, there is a very consistent pattern in your >>>>> posts, and you've exhibited it once again. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > For the love of Mike, and he got fed up and left the NG days ago.... Dallas is now plonked... SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson > Dallas is now plonked... The height of maturity, but when you're dealing with Mark Morgan can we expect anything less than childish histrionics? Signaturewww.nikongear.com Share, learn, win. > > Dallas is now plonked... > > The height of maturity, but when you're dealing with Mark Morgan can we > expect anything less than childish histrionics? Look, both of you. I don't know either of you from Adam and I don't know what the beef is between the both of you, BUT I can say with absolute certainty that you should both GET A LIFE and stop bickering like school kids over who's dad can beat up who. Come on, this is as public a place as any for EVERYONE to see how 'childish histrionics' are being diaplyed by BOTH of you. I often enjoy spats like this where posters are reduced to name calling etc. etc. but you guys actually seem quite decent blokes (independantly) apart from the threads and sub threads of pure and simple moronicness. Give it up eh? Doc >>> Dallas is now plonked... >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Give it up eh? Perhaps you don't realize what "plonked" means. I've just put Dallas in my filter file so that he no longer exists (I can't see his posts any more). SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson > >>> Dallas is now plonked... > >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > I've just put Dallas in my filter file so that he no longer exists (I can't > see his posts any more). Yes, I do know what plonking is. I've got the Tshirt. Why do you think I replied to Dallas' post? So you could see what he'd written. Doc >>>>> Dallas is now plonked... >>>> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Doc Ah... Didn't even notice him. He's been dogging me for many moons... You're right, of course... I shouldn't have let it go that long. Over now... SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson > Do you hand hold 400, 500 and 600mm wide aperture lenses? If you do > there's a problem with your approach. Those lenses are designed to be [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > them apart from the ordinary hack who buys his stuff with as many user- > aids as he can afford: talent. I sometime do... I even shoot a swan landing on a river using a 500/4.0 IS with 1.4x convert and SOLD that picture :-) But I rather use a mono or a tripod... SignatureJørn Dahl-Stamnes http://www.dahl-stamnes.net/Foto/ >And if Nikon doesn't introduce an FF body shortly there are going to be a >lot more new Canon owners using Nikon glass. How do you support this statement? >LOL! You got that right! And it's not only the 17-35. Once a Canon user >throws a Nikkor on the old 5D it's over with and they quickly realize they >made a mistake buying Canon glass. In fairness, if Nikon keeps up their >current trend of putting out these consumer grade DX lenses they will be in >the same sinking boat as Canon. I would hate to see Nikon throw away their >title of being the world leader in optics by following Canon's lead. Rumors have it that Nikon will be releaseing a lot of pro glass in 2007, at least that's what the rumormongers on dpreview are saying. What are your objections to non-pro glass, max aperture aside? Pere Kodak >> And if Nikon doesn't introduce an FF body shortly there are going to >> be a lot more new Canon owners using Nikon glass. > > How do you support this statement? I've seen a lot of people use the famous 5D with Nikon lenses getting killer images. >> LOL! You got that right! And it's not only the 17-35. Once a >> Canon user throws a Nikkor on the old 5D it's over with and they [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Rumors have it that Nikon will be releaseing a lot of pro glass in > 2007, at least that's what the rumormongers on dpreview are saying. I hope you are right and they don't try to cram that DX crap down our throats. > What are your objections to non-pro glass, max aperture aside? I have no objections to non-pro glass, I just don't want to see Nikon, or any other manufacturer, change for the sake of changing and discontinue or not introduce great new glass. Rita > >> And if Nikon doesn't introduce an FF body shortly there are going to > >> be a lot more new Canon owners using Nikon glass. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >> Canon user throws a Nikkor on the old 5D it's over with and they > >> quickly realize they made a mistake buying Canon glass. In Nikon always had the reputation for better glass than Canon but digital's ability to take advantage of quality optics made people forget about Nikon glass. Has the 5D really reached that point where the bodies can now take advantage of the best optics again? > Nikon always had the reputation for better glass than Canon but > digital's ability to take advantage of quality optics made people forget > about Nikon glass. Has the 5D really reached that point where the bodies > can now take advantage of the best optics again? Ahem, head to head, Canon has had better lenses than Nikon in most FL's since the 90's. Nikon's best days are behind them although they have done quite well on their name, rep and loyalty. Nikon has nothing to be ashamed of of course, they've just lost the "best overall" edge that they once had in 35mm SLR lenses. They still produce excellent lenses ... just not most of them anymore. As to digital, Canon won the race quite a while ago and Nikon has paid for their slow start in defections to Canon, in particular amongst sports journalists... a trend that began before the digital era. 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: Remove FreeLunch. > > Nikon always had the reputation for better glass than Canon but > > digital's ability to take advantage of quality optics made people forget [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Cheers, > Alan Wrong. The only advantage Canon started to have with lenses was with IS and Nikon was way behind. Sports photojournalists were using slow films and hardly ever needed the best optics for the low quality pics they generally had printed in mags and newspapers. So slightly lesser quality optics didn't make a difference. With digital, the bodies are the weak link, not the lenses, so the canon shooters thought they had equal optics. Digital hasn't been capable of using lenses to their potential but now some are saying that the 5D and other full-frame bodies are. Hence, the photogs running to non-canon lenses. >>> Nikon always had the reputation for better glass than Canon but >>> digital's ability to take advantage of quality optics made people [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > potential but now some are saying that the 5D and other full-frame > bodies are. Hence, the photogs running to non-canon lenses. I think people are smoking too much funny stuff... as I have yet to spot even a SINGLE photographer using a 5D or 1Ds, 1D Mark II or 1Ds Mark II with anthing other than Canon glass. I suspect that tales of widespread non-Canon glass use on these bodies are exaggerated in the extreme. SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson >I think people are smoking too much funny stuff... as I have yet to spot >even a SINGLE photographer using a 5D or 1Ds, 1D Mark II or 1Ds Mark II with >anthing other than Canon glass. I suspect that tales of widespread >non-Canon glass use on these bodies are exaggerated in the extreme. I have; I've seen the various flavours of 1D (particularly the 1D Mk II) being used with the Sigma 12-24 zoom. Mind you, all the other glass in use (up to a 600mm) was Canon L-series. >> I think people are smoking too much funny stuff... as I have yet to >> spot even a SINGLE photographer using a 5D or 1Ds, 1D Mark II or 1Ds [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > II) being used with the Sigma 12-24 zoom. Mind you, all the other > glass in use (up to a 600mm) was Canon L-series. I can believe that...because Canon simply doesn't have a lens that goes that wide. But that is an entirely different motivation that what is being (I believe erroneously) suggested by some here. The suggestion here by some...that people are "flocking" to other manufacturers because the performance is better?? I don't see that, nor do I believe it to be anything remotely resembling the exodus they pretend exists. SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson > Wrong. The only advantage Canon started to have with lenses was with > IS and Nikon was way behind. Sports photojournalists were using slow [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > potential but now some are saying that the 5D and other full-frame > bodies are. Hence, the photogs running to non-canon lenses. Yep! And this is what Canon FF users are finding out their lenses are not optically performing as they should. Canon has yet to produce a workable WA for their FF bodies. This is where Nikon and an aftermarket adapter fill the void. Rita >>>Nikon always had the reputation for better glass than Canon but >>>digital's ability to take advantage of quality optics made people forget [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Wrong. About what? 1: Canon lenses over the past 15 years have emerged as better in quality (sharpness, contrast, flare resitance, build). IOW Canon have more "winners" than Nikon. The margin here is very slim, eg: a battle of excellence, however Canon have that edge in most lenses. In technology, (IS v. VR) they are also ahead of Nikon. In digital bodies they have always been way ahead of Nikon and the EOS 1V is a better camera than the F5 (film days). This all began before the digital era. 2: Sports journalists have migrated to Canon in droves. Again, this started before the digital era got its legs. > The only advantage Canon started to have with lenses was with IS > and Nikon was way behind. Sports photojournalists were using slow films [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > but now some are saying that the 5D and other full-frame bodies are. > Hence, the photogs running to non-canon lenses. How many? Very few professionals are wasting their time using non Canon glass on Canon bodies. They have no time for such silliness and incompatibility issues that result. On the shooting line at any US sporting event the gross majority of the lenses are Canon. 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: Remove FreeLunch. > How many? Very few professionals are wasting their time using non > Canon glass on Canon bodies. They have no time for such silliness and > incompatibility issues that result. Quite a few. The 5D jumps to life when mated with the old obsolete, but still legendary, 58mm f/1.2 Noct Nikkor. Canon has as of yet to develop and market a lens of equal quality. > On the shooting line at any US sporting event the gross majority of > the lenses are Canon. Hey, if I were given free unlimited use of Canon gear I would be shooting with it. Since my pocket change comes from my own pockets I have to spend it wisely and buy what works best, Nikon. Rita >> How many? Very few professionals are wasting their time using non >> Canon glass on Canon bodies. They have no time for such silliness and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > and > market a lens of equal quality. Please show me a documented case of a pro photog shooting bread-and-butter for SI or nature or other magazines who uses Nikon glass on a Canon body. While Nikon has its trophy lenses from then and now, nobody can go wrong by selecting the better Canon lenses. The 58mm f/1.2 is an exceptional lens, and by exceptional I'm not referring to its quality regardless of how good it is. >> On the shooting line at any US sporting event the gross majority of >> the lenses are Canon. > > Hey, if I were given free unlimited use of Canon gear I would be shooting > with it. Since my pocket change comes from my own pockets I have to spend > it wisely and buy what works best, Nikon. That's a legacy decision, right? Cheers, Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-sy |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message