 |
 | 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 / January 2008Canon's revenge:
http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/newstex/AFX-0013-22483434.htm 'In 2008 we aim to capture the top market share in Japan as well as globally, in both the compact and SLR camera segments,' Canon president Tsuneji Uchida told a press conference. > http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/newstex/AFX-0013-22483434.htm > > 'In 2008 we aim to capture the top market share in Japan as well as > globally, in both the compact and SLR camera segments,' Canon president > Tsuneji Uchida told a press conference. The cheque is in the mail. > http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/newstex/AFX-0013-2248343... > > 'In 2008 we aim to capture the top market share in Japan as well as > globally, in both the compact and SLR camera segments,' Canon president > Tsuneji Uchida told a press conference. Then stop making crappy lenses, you'd have a better chance. >> http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/newstex/AFX-0013-2248343... >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Then stop making crappy lenses, you'd have a better chance. What Canon lenses do YOU have? What lenses of any make do YOU have? > "RichA" <rander3...@gmail.com> a écrit dans le message de news: > 366219d9-a80b-4815-b9f7-24dc7cac9...@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com... [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > What Canon lenses do YOU have? What lenses of any make do YOU have? Olympus, Nikon, Zeiss, Leica, Konica, Tamron, Tokina, Kiron, Pentax, Minolta and a smattering of lesser known brands. No Sigma, no Canon. On Jan 28, 12:08 am, "jean" <try...@find.it> wrote: > "RichA" <rander3...@gmail.com> a écrit dans le message de news: > 366219d9-a80b-4815-b9f7-24dc7cac9...@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com... [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > What Canon lenses do YOU have? What lenses of any make do YOU have? Olympus, Nikon, Zeiss, Leica, Konica, Tamron, Tokina, Kiron, Pentax, Minolta and a smattering of lesser known brands. No Sigma, no Canon. Well then stop slamming Canon since you don't have any of their equipment! Talk about what YOU know rather than being an internet parrot! > "RichA" <rander3...@gmail.com> a écrit dans le message de news: > d8064a78-93d0-4644-8a06-2fee7c881...@c4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Well then stop slamming Canon since you don't have any of their equipment! > Talk about what YOU know rather than being an internet parrot! I've used their stuff, and having used it, I wouldn't own it. Besides, the entire lens adapter industry is based on Canon users adapting other mfg lenses to their cameras. That should tell you something. Start reading this forum, it'll enlighten you. http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/board/55 >> Well then stop slamming Canon since you don't have any of their >> equipment! Talk about what YOU know rather than being an internet [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/board/55 Just as I predicted! I knew Canon users would want the 14-24/2.8 Nikkor, but I never thought they'd go this crazy over it since they now have a way of adapting it. What's really sad is Canon's flagship 24/1.4 doesn't even come close to Nikon's inexpensive zoom. <http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/594820> When you read Canon users comments like this you know it's sad being let down by a company you heavily invested into a poorly designed lens system. "This is what the Canon 16-35mm MK II should have been. The Canon 14mm MkII looks similarly unimpressive. Nikon is becoming more and more attractive..." Rita > >> Well then stop slamming Canon since you don't have any of their > >> equipment! Talk about what YOU know rather than being an internet [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Rita I read another comment the other day in one of the mags where the writer was lauding the Nikon 14-24mm and saying they had no trouble turning out fine WA lenses, unlike "some" companies. In deference to advertisers, they didn't name it, but we all know who they meant. I would have thought that the 16-35mm, (apparently re-designed by Canon specifically to combat the perception their creaky old film lenses are terrible with digital sensors) would have been substantially better, but when tested the differences between it and the old one were miniscule. >> When you read Canon users comments like this you know it's sad being >> let down by a company you heavily invested into a poorly designed [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > but when tested the differences between it and the old one were > miniscule. In Canon's defense they did make two major "improvements" to the 16-35/2.8L. They had to change the silk screening to add the "II" designation to the side of the lens and tap the threads to accept 82mm filters to further piss off their customers and remind them they now have an "improved" "II" version of the same old piece of crap. Rita A lens is a tool. In the hands of those with limited skill the best tool is worse than a mediocre tool in skilled hands. Sic semper cameraholics. > A lens is a tool. > In the hands of those with limited skill the best tool is worse than a > mediocre tool in skilled hands. > Sic semper cameraholics. Yeah, but remember, when ya' gotta drive nails, everything looks like a hammer. >> A lens is a tool. >> In the hands of those with limited skill the best tool is worse than a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Yeah, but remember, when ya' gotta drive nails, everything looks like a > hammer. I've found that the coating on my Noctilux f1.0 scratched rather easily when pounding nails. I'm guessing a heavier lens would have a thicker coating, right? mike >>> A lens is a tool. >>> In the hands of those with limited skill the best tool is worse than a [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > when pounding nails. I'm guessing a heavier lens would have a thicker > coating, right? ;-D ["Followup-To:" header set to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems.] > I've found that the coating on my Noctilux f1.0 scratched rather easily > when pounding nails. I'm guessing a heavier lens would have a thicker > coating, right? \begin{emulation}[Antt-Rita] Which proves what a load of crap the Noctilux is, and why everyone and their monkey and donkey call that lens an overpriced, stupid, worthless pubicity stunt gone bad. Sheesh, can't Nikon come up with some good lenses, like the 50m f/1.0? \end{emulation} -Wolfgang >> A lens is a tool. >> In the hands of those with limited skill the best tool is worse than a >> mediocre tool in skilled hands. >> Sic semper cameraholics. > > Yeah, but remember, when ya' gotta drive nails, everything looks like a hammer. There's more to it than that. It's possible to read thousands of words on resolution, sharpness and various forms of distortion in hundreds of reviews by scores of geeks who base their pontifications on "bench racing." The fact is that a lens is a tool, but like a painter's brush, there's not only quality (the bristles don't fall out when you're painting) but also character (could be made of worn-out rope, or unborn baby camel eyelashes) to consider. Take this handful of fast Nikkors as an example. I've used the 35/1.4, the 50/1.4 and the 85/1.4 wide open. Each has a characteristic "look" that has more to do with the way it reproduces a scene than can be explained by focal length. Not only that, but each makes images that have subtle variations from its Zeiss or Sigma or Tamron counterparts. I've never tried a 28/1.4 but I'll be glad to take delivery of a loaner and report back, with samples...  SignatureA cynic is not merely one who reads bitter lessons from the past, he is one who is prematurely disappointed in the future. Sidney J. Harris "Serge Desplanques" <desplanques@volume.en> wrote in message > A cynic is not merely one who reads bitter lessons from the past, he is > one who is prematurely disappointed in the future. > Sidney J. Harris Boy, that sure hits home with me.....They say, "Expect the best, but prepare for the worst.". Well, I always expect the worst, and then I am pleasantly surprised when anything else happens......:^) In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Pudentame <no.one@no.were.invalid> wrote: >> A lens is a tool. >> In the hands of those with limited skill the best tool is worse than a >> mediocre tool in skilled hands. >> Sic semper cameraholics. >Yeah, but remember, when ya' gotta drive nails, everything looks like a >hammer. You can't use my lens as a hammer. No, NO, <crash, tinkle, tinkle> Signature--- Paul J. Gans >> Start reading this forum, it'll enlighten you. >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > When you read Canon users comments like this you know it's sad being let > down by a company you heavily invested into a poorly designed lens system. Nice lens. Too bad you have to stick on those low resolution high noise Nikon bodies. ;-) >>> Start reading this forum, it'll enlighten you. >>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > ;-) Nikon will want a high MP full frame model soon to take advantage of all these new pro lenses. The 14-24 sounds spectacular from that review (and they do a pretty good job) but damn is it big: http://www.digitalreview.ca/Content/pics/D300/Nikon-D3-12-24mm.jpg > that review (and they do a pretty good job) This review linked from the fredmiranda discussion: http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/nikon_14_24mm_1/nikon14_24mm_a.html > >> Start reading this forum, it'll enlighten you. > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > ;-) Well the D3 and D300 seem to have control of that, and it's likely the D80's successor will too. The lower end model buyers? Doesn't matter, they'll be happy with kit lenses. On Jan 28, 12:50 pm, "jean" <try...@find.it> wrote: > "RichA" <rander3...@gmail.com> a écrit dans le message de news: > d8064a78-93d0-4644-8a06-2fee7c881...@c4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Well then stop slamming Canon since you don't have any of their equipment! > Talk about what YOU know rather than being an internet parrot! I've used their stuff, and having used it, I wouldn't own it. Besides, the entire lens adapter industry is based on Canon users adapting other mfg lenses to their cameras. That should tell you something. Start reading this forum, it'll enlighten you. http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/board/55 Start USING your lenses (if you have any*) rather than blabbering what OTHERS have to say. Over and out! * You can say what you want about what you have or claim to have, you have as much credibility as a certain president has with an intern and a cigar in an oval office. > http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/newstex/AFX-0013-22483434.htm > > 'In 2008 we aim to capture the top market share in Japan as well as > globally, in both the compact and SLR camera segments,' Canon president > Tsuneji Uchida told a press conference. Seems more like a dream than reality. He forgets one major thing: first they'll have to really get better than Nikon and that will be a difficult task. People don't forget the bogus focus of the 1d MIII. Just putting out more camera's with more bugs is not going to impress the majority of people. More models is not as important to Nikon, who seem to prefer less models, but with higher and more reliable quality. The reliability of a company is very important. It made me buy my D300 "blind folded" and I never had any regrets. Another "small" thing Canon won't be able to trump is Nikon as a seller to NASA. This is a major sales "killer", a twisted thorn in the side of Canon DSLR sales. SignatureSosumi > >http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/newstex/AFX-0013-2248343... > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > -- > Sosumi It's too late for that anyway. NASA just got 14 D2Xs's. I figured NASA might have adopted Canon (along with faulty Shuttle preparation) when that scumbag Administrator Golden developed the idea of "faster, better, cheaper." We all know what that lead to. >> http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/newstex/AFX-0013-22483434.htm >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > first they'll have to really get better than Nikon and that will be a > difficult task. Especially now with the D3 readily available and taking the photography world by storm. Even the two new Nikkors are having Canon users drooling and jumping back to Nikon. Canon is dead in the water since they can't produce lenses half as good as the 14-24/2.8 and 24-70/2.8 Nikkors. Rita >>> http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/newstex/AFX-0013-22483434.htm >>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > and jumping back to Nikon. Canon is dead in the water since they can't > produce lenses half as good as the 14-24/2.8 and 24-70/2.8 Nikkors. Rita, you are a hoot! Half as good? Modulation transfer function? Spherical distortion? Chromatic aberrations? Color fringing? Internal reflections? Focus speed? Focus ratio, center to edge? Image stabilization? Weather sealing? Build quality? Repeatability (QC)? Post some evidence. >> Especially now with the D3 readily available and taking the >> photography world by storm. Even the two new Nikkors are having [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Rita, you are a hoot! Half as good? And I'm being generous and politically correct to Canon. > Modulation transfer function? Spherical distortion? Chromatic > aberrations? Color fringing? Internal reflections? Focus speed? Focus > ratio, center to edge? Image stabilization? Weather sealing? Build > quality? Repeatability (QC)? Yes, these seem to be areas where Canon is struggling. > Post some evidence. The D3 seals the deal! Rita ["Followup-To:" header set to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems.] >> Post some evidence. > The D3 seals the deal! Oh, you _finally_ made the deal with the devil about your soul ... but for a D3? You really drive a hardy bargain. -Wolfgang > ["Followup-To:" header set to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems.] > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Oh, you _finally_ made the deal with the devil about your > soul ... but for a D3? You really drive a hardy bargain. All things considered, not bad. The first offer was for a 1985 Toyota Celica. Anyway, remember that the most important thing in photography is you, your eyes, your mind and your way to find images where others can't. Lenses, camera, bodies, etc......amazing things to talk about and to be promotioned by manufacturers but nothing essential in order to get great images. > http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/newstex/AFX-0013-22483434.htm > > 'In 2008 we aim to capture the top market share in Japan as well as > globally, in both the compact and SLR camera segments,' Canon president > Tsuneji Uchida told a press conference. |
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.