 |
 | 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 / September 2007Pro opinion, Canon versus Nikon
A friend of mine was talking to a pro who was buying a D3, or ordering one at any rate. $6100 Canadian, $4995 U.S., 20% premium even though the dollars are within 5-6% of each other. Anyway, the guy buying it said that Canon pro models are plagued with QC issues and durability issues. Focus problems, shutter failures and sensor alignment issues. Canons constantly going in for repair. So, many of these people he knows have given up on Canon's arguably superior sensor output to go back to Nikon pro gear simply because of durability. He was apparently happy Nikon finally will have something that can compete in terms of noise controls and other image quality areas. So many people are switching from Shell to Chevron too. It makes you wonder . . . No one who really compares the two will say one is better than the other. They are both great systems. There are differences but it is not one good one bad. Most people will be happiest with the one they have owned before or that the have a warm fuzzy feeling for.  SignatureJoseph Meehan Dia 's Muire duit >A friend of mine was talking to a pro who was buying a D3, or > ordering one at any rate. $6100 Canadian, $4995 U.S., 20% premium [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > that can compete in terms of noise controls and other image quality > areas. > Most people will be happiest with the one they have owned > before or that they have a warm fuzzy feeling for. True of cameras, computers, cars, bicycles, and a range of other things. The Nikon shutter in my D-50 sounds like the shutter in my old F3. The primary concern of advertisers is to get theirs into the consumer's hands first. : No one who really compares the two will say one is better than the : other. They are both great systems. There are differences but it is : not one good one bad. Most people will be happiest with the one they : have owned before or that the have a warm fuzzy feeling for. I don't know about Nikon, but there's an overall consistency in the look and feel over a lot of the Canon line. So when my wife and I got our XTi's, the transition from our old cameras (a G-5 and an S50) wasn't a complete re-learning experience. Bob > A friend of mine was talking to a pro who was buying a D3, or > ordering one at any rate. $6100 Canadian, $4995 U.S., 20% premium [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > I couldn't make my mind up... I bought a Pentax. I'm still having problems chhosing between Aperture and Lightroom ;-) SignatureClive Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take..... but by the moments that take our breath away. > I couldn't make my mind up... I bought a Pentax. I'm still having problems > chhosing between Aperture and Lightroom ;-) Took me a while to work out what Lightroom could do for me, pretty much can't live without it now. >> A friend of mine was talking to a pro who was buying a D3, or >> ordering one at any rate. $6100 Canadian, $4995 U.S., 20% premium [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > I couldn't make my mind up... I bought a Pentax. I'm still having > problems chhosing between Aperture and Lightroom ;-) Took me awhile. I finally stayed with Aperture, not because it is better, really, but because I thought it was 'prettier,' whatever that means. SignatureWaddling Eagle World Famous Flight Instructor When I am doing video at the big shoots in Japan I keep my eye on the still guys. It looks like Canon/Nikon are split just about 50% each. Toby >A friend of mine was talking to a pro who was buying a D3, or > ordering one at any rate. $6100 Canadian, $4995 U.S., 20% premium [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > that can compete in terms of noise controls and other image quality > areas. > A friend of mine was It is remarkable how second-handed your "experience" and "knowledge" is. > talking to a pro Or third-handed. > So, many of these people he knows Or fourth-handed. -Wolfgang On Sep 5, 8:38 am, Wolfgang Weisselberg <ozcvgt...@sneakemail.com> wrote: > > A friend of mine was > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > -Wolfgang What has been your experience with the pro Canon models? Wedding photogs need not apply since their profession isn't exactly demanding on pro bodies as say nature or sports might be. > Wedding > photogs need not apply since their profession isn't exactly demanding > on pro bodies as say nature or sports might be. ????? [...] > What has been your experience with the pro Canon models? Wedding > photogs need not apply since their profession isn't exactly demanding > on pro bodies as say nature or sports might be. ????!! Did you ever try shooting a wedding outdoors in a pouring rain? Did you ever try to catch those exit shots after the reception or ceremony in an ice-storm or blizzard with sub-zero temperatures? Did you ever shoot in a church so gawd-awful hot and humid that sweat poured down into your eyes and down your arms and onto the camera? Did you ever try to juggle multiple bodies and lenses while having to make REALLY FAST switches? Have you ever had your camera run over by a car at a night reception, or dropped lenses multiple times while switching them - or had the body and lens fall face down in the mud while your attention was momentarily elsewhere? And, if you have two bodies strung around your neck, try running to catch "a moment" without having gear crashing together. Also, try shooting 1-2 thousand images every weekend and see how long lesser gear holds up. (I have experienced only some of this, and a wedding photographer friend has experienced the rest...) SignatureDavid Ruether d_ruether@hotmail.com http://www.donferrario.com/ruether > [...] >> What has been your experience with the pro Canon models? Wedding [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > (I have experienced only some of this, and a wedding > photographer friend has experienced the rest...) Let's face it, Rich has never done professional weddings. > > [...] > >> What has been your experience with the pro Canon models? Wedding [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Let's face it, Rich has never done professional weddings. Actually, I have because I was asked, but I would never go looking to do it as a profession. However, I realize that wedding photography as a business dwarfs most other photographic professions in-terms of business "size." >> > [...] >> >> What has been your experience with the pro Canon models? Wedding [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > as a business dwarfs most other photographic professions in-terms of > business "size." You really are clueless > >> "David Ruether" <r...@no-junk.cornell.edu> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > You really are clueless So weddings don't make up the bulk of professional photographic jobs? Well, maybe more passport photos get taken... > Let's face it, Rich has never done professional weddings. Give him a break --- he might have married once or twice, and it might even have been professional. -Wolfgang > What has been your experience with the pro Canon models? Wedding > photogs need not apply since their profession isn't exactly demanding > on pro bodies as say nature or sports might be. Personally, I would rather face an enraged tiger than the mother of a bride. I cannot imagine why anyone would think that wedding photography is not demanding on pro bodies, or on their cameras, either. :-) > > What has been your experience with the pro Canon models? Wedding > > photogs need not apply since their profession isn't exactly demanding [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I cannot imagine why anyone would think that wedding photography is > not demanding on pro bodies, or on their cameras, either. :-) When you see some poor photog, slogging it up a mountain with a 400mm f2.8 wrapped in duct tape, or nearly getting or getting run over by a running back, it's kind of hard to see a wedding photog as being in a demanding situation. But then anyone can hold their finger down on the shutter button, firing off thousands of images in the hopes of getting one or two really good ones. That does have an effect on shutter life. >> > What has been your experience with the pro Canon models? Wedding >> > photogs need not apply since their profession isn't exactly demanding [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > firing off thousands of images in the hopes of getting one or two > really good ones. That does have an effect on shutter life. That's how you would shoot a wedding. Don't project that behavior on photogs that have actually done it. Mark > "RichA" <rander3127@gmail.com> wrote in message >> But then anyone can hold their finger down on the shutter button, >> firing off thousands of images in the hopes of getting one or two >> really good ones. That does have an effect on shutter life. > That's how you would shoot a wedding. Don't project that behavior on > photogs that have actually done it. He probably applies the law of duck hunting for idiots to all his camera work (as much as there is any): If you shoot enough pellets, you are bound to hit _something_. (Of course RichA might now counter by showing his good shots ... but I doubt that will happen.) -Wolfgang > When you see some poor photog, slogging it up a mountain with a 400mm > f2.8 wrapped in duct tape, or nearly getting or getting run over by a > running back, it's kind of hard to see a wedding photog as being in a > demanding situation. That's true, unless its a mountaintop wedding (I've attended several.) I've dragged 30 pound view camera rigs up Mt. Kenya, Kala Patar, and numerous 15,000-18,000 foot passes. It's rough on the photog, but not so much on the cameras. Worst I ever had happen was when a elephant took a sh.t on my trusty Pacemaker Crown Graphic (thankfully not an actual view camera) with the apo-Symmar on it at the time. When using SLRs I carry the camera around in the woods in a dry bag. This has saved me many times, though of course I do occasionally lose a shot to the time necessary to get it out. Doug McDonald >> What has been your experience with the pro Canon models? Wedding >> photogs need not apply since their profession isn't exactly demanding >> on pro bodies as say nature or sports might be. > > Personally, I would rather face an enraged tiger than the mother of a > bride. A good friend of mine is a wedding photographer and has asked me many times to come along and see "how the other half live". I always decline ... personally I'd rather be sat in the path of a race car than do battle with a wedding party !!! > On Sep 5, 8:38 am, Wolfgang Weisselberg <ozcvgt...@sneakemail.com> >> > A friend of mine was >> It is remarkable how second-handed your "experience" and >> "knowledge" is. >> > talking to a pro >> Or third-handed. >> > So, many of these people he knows >> Or fourth-handed. > What has been your experience with the pro Canon models? Let me ask you, since you are such a well of information on all things Canon and plastic and Nikon and all: Have *you* any experience with any Canon model? Personally? Have *you* any experience with any Nikon model? Personally? Thought so. -Wolfgang On Sep 5, 5:55 pm, Wolfgang Weisselberg <ozcvgt...@sneakemail.com> wrote: > > On Sep 5, 8:38 am, Wolfgang Weisselberg <ozcvgt...@sneakemail.com> > >> > A friend of mine was [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Have *you* any experience with any Canon model? Personally? Just the XTi and the 20 and 30Ds and 5D. > Have *you* any experience with any Nikon model? Personally? Just the D40, D50, D80 and D200. >On Sep 5, 5:55 pm, Wolfgang Weisselberg <ozcvgt...@sneakemail.com> >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > >Just the D40, D50, D80 and D200. Shooting the displays at Henry's really shouldn't count as "experience." Or does your experience extend past http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/nikon_canon_test_images ? TR > >On Sep 5, 5:55 pm, Wolfgang Weisselberg <ozcvgt...@sneakemail.com> > >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > TR Sure, that's why I ended up choosing Olympus. > On Sep 5, 5:55 pm, Wolfgang Weisselberg <ozcvgt...@sneakemail.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Just the D40, D50, D80 and D200. For how long? 5 minutes? Greg SignatureTicketmaster and Ticketweb suck, but everyone knows that: http://www.ticketmastersucks.org Dethink to survive - Mclusky >> On Sep 5, 5:55 pm, Wolfgang Weisselberg <ozcvgt...@sneakemail.com> >>> Have *you* any experience with any Canon model? Personally? >> Just the XTi and the 20 and 30Ds and 5D. >>> Have *you* any experience with any Nikon model? Personally? >> Just the D40, D50, D80 and D200. > For how long? 5 minutes? I bet he stared at them through the window pane a bit longer than that ... -Wolfgang On Sep 6, 3:41 pm, Wolfgang Weisselberg <ozcvgt...@sneakemail.com> wrote: > >> On Sep 5, 5:55 pm, Wolfgang Weisselberg <ozcvgt...@sneakemail.com> > >>> Have *you* any experience with any Canon model? Personally? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > -Wolfgang So I take it then that you Canonwhores dispute the claim that their pro cameras are unreliable compared to Nikons? Canon was second-rate when SLRs ruled, the ONLY reason they were able to claim the markets with DSLRs is that they succeeded in producing a good sensor and they paid their way into the newsrooms and magazines to take the spots. The mafia did the same with garbage collection. It was later people found out the good times weren't going to last. This seems to be what has happened with Canon. : On Sep 6, 3:41 pm, Wolfgang Weisselberg <ozcvgt...@sneakemail.com> : wrote: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] : It was later people found out the good times weren't going to last. : This seems to be what has happened with Canon. It's been a couple of weeks. Has anybody succeeded in figuring out what that paragraph means? Did the mafia's garbage collectors really produce a good sensor and pay their way into newsrooms? Enquiring minds want to know. Bob >: On Sep 6, 3:41 pm, Wolfgang Weisselberg <ozcvgt...@sneakemail.com> >: wrote: [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > >Bob This is one of Rander's loonie conspiracy theories - he seems to think the only reason Canon has been successful is because it gave cameras and lenses to newspapers. He considers it an unfair trade practice, and compares it to the way Laidlaw, a waste management company, was able to maintain a virtual monopoly in waste management. And since waste management in some areas has been dominated by organized crime and Laidlaw is a waste management, Rich concludes that Laidlaw is controlled by the mafia. The problem with this deranged theory - well, one of the problems, for there are many - is it strays from reality. It's a common thread running through most of Rander's articles. TR > >: On Sep 6, 3:41 pm, Wolfgang Weisselberg <ozcvgt...@sneakemail.com> > >: wrote: [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > and Laidlaw is a waste management, Rich concludes that Laidlaw is > controlled by the mafia. Canon, according to numerous reports, DID "buy" the market. However, I will say that their sensor techonology allowed them to a large extent to keep it and to some "buying" is merely good customer service to professionals. http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/in_focus/jensen.do >: So I take it then that you Canonwhores dispute the claim that their >: pro cameras are unreliable compared to Nikons? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >: It was later people found out the good times weren't going to last. >: This seems to be what has happened with Canon. > It's been a couple of weeks. Has anybody succeeded in figuring out what that > paragraph means? Enquiring minds want to know. Richie cannot stand the idea his beloved Nikons might be not perfect, hence he slanders Canon with everything from being too good to being the mafia. He's so way off his rocker there's no reason left at all. -Wolfgang On Sep 24, 3:27 pm, Wolfgang Weisselberg <ozcvgt...@sneakemail.com> wrote: > >: So I take it then that you Canonwhores dispute the claim that their > >: pro cameras are unreliable compared to Nikons? [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > -Wolfgang I don't own Nikon, but I'll wager YOU own Canon. Who has the vested interest? >> Richie cannot stand the idea his beloved Nikons might be not >> perfect, hence he slanders Canon with everything from being too [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I don't own Nikon, but I'll wager YOU own Canon. Who has the vested > interest? If you consider a few crappy barely consumer grade lenses, Wolfie has em. He doesn't know any better and thinks he's happy. Rita > If you consider a few crappy barely consumer grade lenses, Wolfie has em. > He doesn't know any better and thinks he's happy. I've never seen any evidence that he thinks any such thing. Maybe because what he has are fleas. >>> Richie cannot stand the idea his beloved Nikons might be not >>> perfect, hence he slanders Canon with everything from being too >>> good to being the mafia. He's so way off his rocker there's no >>> reason left at all. >> I don't own Nikon, but I'll wager YOU own Canon. Who has the vested >> interest? I don't own a single Canon share, so my "vested interest" must be ... well, I dunno, maybe in my Contax? You don't own any camera, so you are completely free of facts. > If you consider a few crappy barely consumer grade lenses, Wolfie has em. > He doesn't know any better and thinks he's happy. Well, somehow I don't have the budget to have space grade lenses specially built for me and attached to 1MPix sensors (See Opportunity and Spirit). Feel free to show images that are substantially better due to their lenses than what my lenses can manage. Your images shown so far do not inspire me with awe ... -Wolfgang > I don't own Nikon, but I'll wager YOU own Canon. Who has the vested > interest? We all know that you don't own any brand of camera...as evidenced by your lack of knowledge about photography. > On Sep 5, 8:38 am, Wolfgang Weisselberg <ozcvgt...@sneakemail.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > photogs need not apply since their profession isn't exactly demanding > on pro bodies as say nature or sports might be. Ok I'll bite ... although God knows, you aren't worthy of my time. I do sport photography, most specifically motorsports ... i.e bodies in burst mode taking 1000+ images in a weekend is normal, dust everywhere, sometimes wet weather conditions. And to date, I've not had to return any bodies, lenses, kit to Canon for repair or service. I can only assume that you and your "friends" are either very unlucky, or total fuckwits. Although I suspect that in reality, you're just an unlucky fuckwit with no life outside the front door - as repeatedly proven by your inane postings on this NG. > > On Sep 5, 8:38 am, Wolfgang Weisselberg <ozcvgt...@sneakemail.com> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > And to date, I've not had to return any bodies, lenses, kit to Canon for > repair or service. Nothing like ONE anecdotal experience to establish a trend, huh? Idiot. >> > On Sep 5, 8:38 am, Wolfgang Weisselberg <ozcvgt...@sneakemail.com> >> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > Nothing like ONE anecdotal experience to establish a trend, huh? > Idiot. Over here in Japan you'll find that among sports and news pros Canons are in the majority, although barely. You'd certainly think that if the Canons were unreliable everybody would be using Nikons, wouldn't you, considering that these peoples' livelihoods depend on getting the shot. Anecdote that. Toby > "RichA" <rander3127@gmail.com> wrote in message [using ONE anecdotal experience to establish a trend, then attacking an opposite view:] >> Nothing like ONE anecdotal experience to establish a trend, huh? >> Idiot. > Over here in Japan you'll find that among sports and news pros Canons are in > the majority, although barely. You'd certainly think that if the Canons were > unreliable everybody would be using Nikons, wouldn't you, considering that > these peoples' livelihoods depend on getting the shot. > Anecdote that. You're talking to RichA. He'd anecdote that the sun rises in the west without bashing an eyelid, and claim that his photographer friend (who may actually have _used_ a camera, unlike RichA) saw the sun in the west, low on the horizon, at 6'o clock (PM, but no need to mention that), thus proving that the sun rises in the west. Anybody else seeing the sun rising in the east surely is just providing "ONE anecdotal experience to establish a trend". -Wolfgang > What has been your experience with the pro Canon models? Wedding > photogs need not apply since their profession isn't exactly demanding > on pro bodies as say nature or sports might be. If he's doing sports or nature photography then of course he'd go the Canon route because they have the sports lenses that Nikon lacks, and they also have the limitations imposed by their lens mount. For studio photography it's a different ball game, and either system would be fine with the full frame or close to full frame models. >> What has been your experience with the pro Canon models? Wedding >> photogs need not apply since their profession isn't exactly demanding >> on pro bodies as say nature or sports might be. > > If he's doing sports or nature photography then of course he'd go the > Canon route because they have the sports lenses that Nikon lacks, Nikon is has announced new stabilized super-telephotos for that. > and > they also have the limitations imposed by their lens mount. > > For studio photography it's a different ball game, and either system > would be fine with the full frame or close to full frame models. The new 21MP Canon gets the advantage here, unless the priority is dynamic range, then the 12MP Nikon D3 leads according to reports who have tested it. SignaturePaul Furman Photography http://edgehill.net Bay Natives Nursery http://www.baynatives.com > >> What has been your experience with the pro Canon models? Wedding > >> photogs need not apply since their profession isn't exactly demanding [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > dynamic range, then the 12MP Nikon D3 leads according to reports who > have tested it. Lets see if Canon lenses even allow the difference between 16 and 21megapixels to even be visible. I just saw another test where Nikon's 70-200mm stomped all over the Canon equivalent. >> The new 21MP Canon gets the advantage here, unless the priority is >> dynamic range, then the 12MP Nikon D3 leads according to reports who [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 21megapixels to even be visible. I just saw another test where > Nikon's 70-200mm stomped all over the Canon equivalent. What do you expect when the Nikkor has nine rounded blades and Canon uses eight straight blades? Too bad the 70-200mm VR is a G lens or it would be on the old Mk III. Rita > What do you expect when the Nikkor has nine rounded blades and Canon uses > eight straight blades? That Nikon is so bad that all you can harp about is blades. -Wolfgang >>> The new 21MP Canon gets the advantage here, unless the priority is >>> dynamic range, then the 12MP Nikon D3 leads according to reports who [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Rita Well I think the whole Canon vs. Nikon thing is rather amusing. I will say that I have been using Canon for years in 35mm and now I have the consumer Rebel XT now and I have a 10D that I got with a lens on ebay (needs a repair, haven't sent it yet). I have shot tens of 1000's of photos with the Rebel XT (to the point where I have worn smooth the parts of the body where my fingers are so they are shiny instead of the textured flat black) and it keeps going and going - I have shot in the rain (without any extra protection) and it has been fine (gotta love wet flowers!). Some of the things that I really like that the consumer Nikons cannot do, but my XT (as well as the prosumer and pro Canon's) can: I have adapters for M42 (Pentax Screw Mount), Olympus OM, Nikon (all including AF and non-AI) and the Canon XT WILL meter them (you have to do at least the Nikon D200 to get this). I could also get adapters for Contax/Yashica and Pentax K mount - all will meter and focus to infinity. You cannot even use adapters on the D40 (3 point AF is truly lacking also) and you have to use the lenses with autofocus motors built in so you cannot use all of the Nikon lens system anyway. I could use adapters for Leica R, Rollei 35, Minolta MD (needs optical element for infinity focus so I don't use it - same with the Canon FD adapter) even the medium format Pentacon 6, Kiev 60, Pentax 645, Hasselblad and it will focus to infinity and meter it. So I can use those Nikon lenses you say are so superior to the Canon ones as well as the Canon and many other lenses. I even have autofocus confirmation electronics on the adapters so it will tell me when it is in focus for those lenses. When I get the 10D repaired, I will be able to use all those items with it as well. To me, lenses all have their own "personality" and no one lens does everything best, so why not the best of all worlds? Take the great lenses of history, use them, meter with them on some of the best digital electronics in the world of digital photography. The ultimate in flexibility of a DSLR system IMO. Having my cake and eating it too! Dennis Dennis' Newsgroups wrote: >> What do you expect when the Nikkor has nine rounded blades and Canon >> uses eight straight blades? Too bad the 70-200mm VR is a G lens or [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > when it is in focus for those lenses. When I get the 10D repaired, I > will be able to use all those items with it as well. Yep, but why would you need AF confirmation? I know that the viewfinder on my Mk III is so nice that I don't have any problems focusing any of my Nikkors, even at 17mm. > To me, lenses all have their own "personality" and no one lens does > everything best, so why not the best of all worlds? Take the great > lenses of history, use them, meter with them on some of the best > digital electronics in the world of digital photography. The > ultimate in flexibility of a DSLR system IMO. Good point, but when you have to put Nikkors on a Canon to get great image quality you know there is something fundamentally wrong with L glass, especially on the wide end. > Having my cake and eating it too! Yep, same here. The Mk III has become a Nikon shooter's dream come true, at least till the D3 arrives. Rita > Dennis' Newsgroups wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > my Mk III is so nice that I don't have any problems focusing any of my > Nikkors, even at 17mm. Well, I have the replacement focusing screen - diagonal split and microscreen doughnut, but I haven't installed it yet. The XT doesn't have a good viewfinder for focusing manually by itself (didn't design it for manual lenses, but gotta love the hackers who built the adapters and manufactured replacement focusing screens). In the mean time, I like having it. >> To me, lenses all have their own "personality" and no one lens does >> everything best, so why not the best of all worlds? Take the great [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > quality you know there is something fundamentally wrong with L glass, > especially on the wide end. I cannot afford L series lenses so I wouldn't know about that. I would love to be able to afford some and a 1D Mach III, but cannot. This way with the adapters I can have a HUGE selection of affordable glass. I have been playing around with an Olympus 50mm E-Zuiko f1.8 (bought on ebay for $1 plus $7 shipping - total $8) and a vintage Nikkor-P 105mm f2.5 ($23.44 shipped - has a sluggish diaphram, but when using it focusing wide open and then stopping down for metering - it works fine for me). I have 3 of the early cult Vivitar Series 1 (28-90, 70-210 and 35-85 varifocal made by Kiron and Komura - each of these would be over $1000 in today's adjusted inflation) in Olympus OM mount (total cost for all 3 was $210 and the last one came with a Canon 10D body that needs a shutter repair as a bonus which I will get repaired). I have Super Takumar 200mm f4 and 35mm f3.5 M42 lenses - cost me $7.50 each. Some great lenses for less than the cost of a current mid range AF lens and in many cases superior optics. I have a hard time believing that the L series lenses are that inferior, but I cannot offer any opinion or evidence as I have not used them. Dennis >> Having my cake and eating it too! > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Rita >A friend of mine was talking to a pro who was buying a D3, or > ordering one at any rate. $6100 Canadian, $4995 U.S., 20% premium [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > that can compete in terms of noise controls and other image quality > areas. Rich, A friend of a friend of mine was listening to the pro talking to a friend of yours and decided not to buy Canon nor Nikon. Instead, he would buy a hammer and chisel and do it the 'ole way : Carve his memories out of rocks. They last longer and all that mess about pixels and sensors are done with. Simply look at the Greek statues dating back thousands of years and tell me about Canon and Nikon durability... Marcel >>A friend of mine was talking to a pro who was buying a D3, or >> ordering one at any rate. $6100 Canadian, $4995 U.S., 20% premium [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > durability... > Marcel Right on! I left my Nikon behind and I always carry a camera bag full of chisels and a hammer. When I see a scene I quickly carve what I see. Unfortunately I developed a hernia while turning the pages of my stone album. On Wed, 5 Sep 2007 08:49:29 -0400, Frank "Rocky" Arthur wrote: >> A friend of a friend of mine was listening to the pro talking to a >> friend of yours and decided not to buy Canon nor Nikon. Instead, he [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Right on! I left my Nikon behind and I always carry a camera bag full > of chisels and a hammer. When I see a scene I quickly carve what I see. Why didn't I think of carrying chisels and a hammer. And all the while I've been wasting my time (and everyone else's) bitching and moaning about the unavailability of 8"x12" rocks. I wish I could solve my problems as easily as you can. > Unfortunately I developed a hernia while turning the pages of my > stone album. You're too old for that. Time to switch to 4"x6" rocks or even subminiatures chiseled on kidney stones. > On Wed, 5 Sep 2007 08:49:29 -0400, Frank "Rocky" Arthur wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > You're too old for that. Time to switch to 4"x6" rocks or even > subminiatures chiseled on kidney stones. BG!!!!! but why a 2/3 ratio? ;-))))))))))) Marcel >>> Unfortunately I developed a hernia while turning the pages of my >>> stone album. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > BG!!!!! > but why a 2/3 ratio? ;-))))))))))) It's the format he evidently likes (8"x12"). At a guess, Frank may have gotten used to this size when using film SLRs, and didn't want to waste a millimeter of what the film captured. I'd like to see cameras that let you enter a few frame sizes (or aspect ratios) using the camera's menu, and then allow one of these to be displayed as a grid, maximized in the camera's EVF or LCD. >> On Wed, 5 Sep 2007 08:49:29 -0400, Frank "Rocky" Arthur wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > but why a 2/3 ratio? ;-))))))))))) > Marcel Because that is the ratio God finds most pleasing to her eye:- > > ordering one at any rate. $6100 Canadian, $4995 U.S., 20% premium > > even though the dollars are within 5-6% of each other. Anyway, the [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Canon and Nikon durability... > Marcel I thought that if you shot in RAW, you could output as "Greek Statue" with the proper converter. >> A friend of mine was talking to a pro who was buying a D3, or >> ordering one at any rate. $6100 Canadian, $4995 U.S., 20% premium [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Canon and Nikon durability... > Marcel Hah! Most of those statues are chipped or broken. A lot of them are missing entire limbs, heads, or wings. You would expect them to last for at least a few centuries, but most did not manage to remain intact for even that short a time. SignatureWaddling Eagle World Famous Flight Instructor > A friend of mine was talking to a pro who was buying a D3, or > ordering one at any rate. $6100 Canadian, $4995 U.S., 20% premium [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > that can compete in terms of noise controls and other image quality > areas. It sounds like someone is rationalizing why he needs to buy the latest and greatest toy. SignatureWaddling Eagle World Famous Flight Instructor |
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
|
©2008 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.