 |
 | 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 / Digital Photo / January 2009Canon - Nikon Observations
Basically, I like the Nikon D90 better than the Canon Digital Rebel Xsi. For me it just feels and handles better and there are more buttons for quicker access to everyday controls. The jury is still out about the Canon 50D. Most of the reviews claim that it is better than the D90 but after a quickie look the D90 seems more comfortable. The big difference between Canon and Nikon is in lenses. Not that you are going to get much better results with one over the other and not that either has super large gaping holes in their lens line that will persist over a reasonable period of time but the difference is in $$$$. It seems that the majority of Nikon lenses are more costly than Canon. I do not know what you are getting for the additional money. [] > The big difference between Canon and Nikon is in lenses. Not that > you are going to get much better results with one over the other and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > than Canon. I do not know what you are getting for the additional > money. Do you see a significant difference in price? Is this true in all parts of the world of just where you live? As a non-Canon purchaser, I gain the impression that Canon lenses are not as good as Nikon ones, and hence I would expect to pay somewhat more. Nikon don't make two quality levels - "standard" and "L". I would expect that both manufacturers have lenses in their ranges which are not as good as others - so avoid the XX-XXmm but go for the YY-YYmm instead. If price really is an issue, you go with 3rd party lenses, if you choose /very/ carefully. Cheers, David David J Taylor added these comments in the current discussion du jour ... > [] >> The big difference between Canon and Nikon is in lenses. Not [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > lenses in their ranges which are not as good as others - so > avoid the XX-XXmm but go for the YY-YYmm instead. As you know, David, I have a Rebel XSi and love it. I imagine you're correct about relative lens quality issues since you're more in tune with the technical stuff than I am. But, this is a LOT like comparing cars and saying that one is good and another is lousy when in fact they are both quality automobiles and serve their intended purposes quite well. So, my conclusion would be that all other things being equal, a real photographer who is skilled will get equivalent results using either a Nikon or Canon camera IF models and lens types are kept comparable. > If price really is an issue, you go with 3rd party lenses, if > you choose /very/ carefully. Agreed. I made an expensive mistake buying a medium length Canon L- glass zoom that is huge, weighs over 2 pounds and set me back about $1,250. You can imagine how pissed I was when I did some comparative testing to other lenses I own, one of which is a superb Sigma, and discoved this big cannon Canon lens is soft! Egad!  SignatureHP, aka Jerry "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity!" - Hanlon's Razor > David J Taylor added these comments in the current discussion du > jour ... [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained > by stupidity!" - Hanlon's Razor Nicely said. I've been listening to this Canon vs. Nikon debate since I first started down this road in the late 60's, and I'm weary of it. The simple fact is, saying one is better than the other is like saying my Dad can beat your Dad, and they're both 6' 4" and 250lbs of solid muscle. It's just silly. As you say, all else being equal, the most important component of the equation is the photographer. The OPs points are perfectly valid. If the camera feel good in his hands, and he likes the controls, that's the one he should use. BigDog1 added these comments in the current discussion du jour ... > Nicely said. I've been listening to this Canon vs. Nikon debate > since I first started down this road in the late 60's, and I'm > weary of it. The simple fact is, saying one is better than the > other is like saying my Dad can beat your Dad, and they're both > 6' 4" and 250lbs of solid muscle. It's just silly. Around here, this debate is like arguing about religion or politics. I truly believe that NO DSLR will produce bad pictures, but SOME can produce higher quality than others. Price has the most to do with it as does where a given camera model is in it's life cycle. > As you say, all else being equal, the most important component > of the equation is the photographer. The OPs points are > perfectly valid. If the camera feel good in his hands, and he > likes the controls, that's the one he should use. Oh, I fully agree with that, and is what I said to the OP. I chose my first DSLR, a Canon Rebel XT, over the Nikon D-70s because it was smaller and lighter and I liked it's controls better. Unfortunately, it turned out to be VERY noisy, hence I bought a Rebel XSi last spring. One of my old friends from work bought a Nikon D80 last year. He and I compared notes at lunch and looked at each other's new toy. We BOTH concluded that what WE bought was more convenient to use. I don't believe there is ANY single right answer to the perennial "what camera is best?" debate. Cheers! SignatureHP, aka Jerry "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity!" - Hanlon's Razor > BigDog1 added these comments in the current discussion du jour ... > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > to do with it as does where a given camera model is in it's life > cycle. These days, in any given "class" of cameras, I think the biggest difference you get with price is physical build quality, and bells'n'whistles. You could conceivably have two cameras by the same manufacturer that use the same sensor, the same processor, and mount the same glass on them, giving the same image quality, yet have one cost $1000 more than the other... because it has things like a larger, brighter viewfinder, manual focus aids, a built-in vertical grip, faster AF performance, higher continuous-shooting framerates, and is built on a metal skeleton vs. mainly plastic. In other words, better construction with the same basic innards, and bells'n'whistles. As with any tool, the more expensive one won't necessarily give better results... it just gives the user more options, flexibility, and/or durability. >> As you say, all else being equal, the most important component >> of the equation is the photographer. The OPs points are [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > I don't believe there is ANY single right answer to the perennial > "what camera is best?" debate. What is this! Agreement and civility in the Canon-vs.-Nikon debate??! We can't have this!! > What is this! Agreement and civility in the Canon-vs.-Nikon debate??! We > can't have this!! I agree, I want to see blood spilt over this ;-) >> BigDog1 added these comments in the current discussion du jour ... >> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > results... it just gives the user more options, flexibility, and/or > durability. While basically true there is the possibility that a particular user could indeed get better results due to some particular group of features like grip, viewfinder, frame rates etc since they would aid him in getting the shot. >>> As you say, all else being equal, the most important component >>> of the equation is the photographer. The OPs points are [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > What is this! Agreement and civility in the Canon-vs.-Nikon debate??! > We can't have this!! measekite added these comments in the current discussion du jour ... > While basically true there is the possibility that a particular > user could indeed get better results due to some particular > group of features like grip, viewfinder, frame rates etc since > they would aid him in getting the shot. Anything is possible. But, to conclude that an entire line of cameras or even just one model has that superior ergonomics that ONE user finds it "better" is really a stretch. The selection of a camera needs to include ALL criteria both quantitative and qualitative that meets or exceeds EACH buyer's own views. There is NO one right answer, in my view. SignatureHP, aka Jerry "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity!" - Hanlon's Razor >>> BigDog1 added these comments in the current discussion du jour ... >>> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > grip, viewfinder, frame rates etc since they would aid him in getting the > shot. But the point remains, that depends on the user, not the tool. Some may make better use of different functions, but the functions don't make the camera inherently capable of better images. > [] >> The big difference between Canon and Nikon is in lenses. Not that [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Do you see a significant difference in price? Is this true in all parts > of the world of just where you live? The answer is yes and the answer is no. As of yes the difference in price is based on USA prices. But in reality it does not make all that much difference where one lives if they buy online. An online website can be located in any country. > As a non-Canon purchaser, I gain the impression that Canon lenses are > not as good as Nikon ones, and hence I would expect to pay somewhat [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Cheers, > David The only 3rd party lenses that got rave reviews come from Tokina. On Jan 7, 11:35 am, "David J Taylor" <david-tay...@blueyonder.neither- this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote: > [] > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Cheers, > David Lieber Mann Canon und NIKON auf der selben Liste measekite added these comments in the current discussion du jour ... > Basically, I like the Nikon D90 better than the Canon Digital > Rebel Xsi. For me it just feels and handles better and there are > more buttons for quicker access to everyday controls. That's what is so wonderful about freedom of choice. I feel exactly the opposite as you do: I love the XSi's ergonmics and it's much smaller size and weight than the Nikon. Others don't. That's what choice is all about. > The jury is still out about the Canon 50D. Most of the reviews > claim that it is better than the D90 but after a quickie look > the D90 seems more comfortable. How does beingg more comfortable add up to "better"? Are you considering image quality as well as look and field? Sounds an awful lot like you're making very subjecting statements and jumping to conclusions with nothing more than unfounded assumptions. I don't really care as everyone is entitled to their opinion. > The big difference between Canon and Nikon is in lenses. Not > that you are going to get much better results with one over the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > lenses are more costly than Canon. I do not know what you are > getting for the additional money. I think you'll get a strong argume Yea and Nay for both Nikkor and Canon L-glass lenses. There are quantitative ways to judge these things that aren't nearly as simple as you make it sound. SignatureHP, aka Jerry "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity!" - Hanlon's Razor > measekite added these comments in the current discussion du jour ... > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > nothing more than unfounded assumptions. I don't really care as everyone > is entitled to their opinion. I don't know that being more comfortable equates to better, but it's not good to have a product you're going to curse at every time you pick it up because it's NOT comfortable. IMHO - comfort and ease of use should be big factors whenever you select someting like a camera. > >> The big difference between Canon and Nikon is in lenses. Not that you [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > L-glass lenses. There are quantitative ways to judge these things that > aren't nearly as simple as you make it sound. ray added these comments in the current discussion du jour ... >> How does beingg more comfortable add up to "better"? Are you >> considering image quality as well as look and field? Sounds an [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > and ease of use should be big factors whenever you select > someting like a camera. That is obviously correct BUT wasn't what I read from the OP who seemed to be more concerned with cosmetics than function. SignatureHP, aka Jerry "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity!" - Hanlon's Razor > ray added these comments in the current discussion du jour ... > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > That is obviously correct BUT wasn't what I read from the OP who > seemed to be more concerned with cosmetics than function. I think he meant, better FOR HIM :) My philosophy is that the BEST camera is the one that GETS USED. If, as ray puts it, you're going to "curse at [your camera] every time you pick it up because it's NOT comfortable", that camera is more likely to be left home sitting on a shelf collecting dust, rather than out taking pictures and giving the photographer enjoyment in his art. At that point, EVERYTHING else you could argue of one over another becomes absolutely meaningless. >> measekite added these comments in the current discussion du jour ... >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >> nothing more than unfounded assumptions. I don't really care as everyone >> is entitled to their opinion. > I don't know that being more comfortable equates to better, but it's not > good to have a product you're going to curse at every time you pick it up > because it's NOT comfortable. IMHO - comfort and ease of use should be > big factors whenever you select someting like a camera. But all these things are tradeoffs. I like to carry around my least comfortable camera because it has more features and can take higher quality photographs in a wider range of conditions. But while my wife is prepared to tolerate the size and weight of my second best and more comfortable camera for the quality of its images, she can't imagine any amount of improved quality of image being worth the extra weight and discomfort of my photographically best but least comfortable camera. SignatureChris Malcolm > measekite added these comments in the current discussion du jour > ... [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > How does beingg more comfortable add up to "better"? Are you > considering image quality as well as look and field? Sounds an Basically the image quality is top notch coming from both Nikon and Canon. A 12x18 print coming from either (same type of sensor and pixels) taking the right and proper way will look about the same as far as image quality. > awful lot like you're making very subjecting statements and jumping > to conclusions with nothing more than unfounded assumptions. I [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Canon L-glass lenses. There are quantitative ways to judge these > things that aren't nearly as simple as you make it sound. If using observation you cannot see much difference even if a machine can see it there really is not difference. > Basically, I like the Nikon D90 better than the Canon Digital Rebel Xsi. > For me it just feels and handles better and there are more buttons for [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > that the majority of Nikon lenses are more costly than Canon. I do not > know what you are getting for the additional money. -------------------- Canon "consumer grade" lenses produce some pretty shocking CA and have real problems at middle distance focus. Several of the "L" lenses should never have been named a Professional lens either. The system Canon use wants to send the lens to infinity long before it should. Nikon's latest bunch of "Consumer grade" lenses are excellent. Some small CA is visible in the 18 -135 but generally, 80% less (IMO) than Canon lenses. Nikon's auto focus system whilst being slower than the Canon system is far more accurate. Middle distance focus is so much better than Canon's, you'd really wonder why they let it happen. I speak from experience. I dumped all my Canon gear over a 4 month period and bought Fuji and Nikon cameras. The last Canon's I had were a 5D and a 40D. You are right about the top end lenses being dearer than "L" Canon lenses but for perfectionists, there is no equal to the Nikon's in Canon's range. During my evaluation period I also used Pentax, Mamiya and Olympus cameras. It's true the D3 is lower resolution than a 1D Mk III. What isn't clear most of the time is that at about 8 Mp, Digital exceeds fine grain 35mm film and can be enlarged to MF sizes due to lack of grain. Posters I've seen made by a rival with his 1D are not as well defined as posters I make from D3 images. There may be some valid argument to buy Canon in the lower and Pro ranges but image quality is not one of them. Most Professional photographers using Canon gear do so only because they can rent $20,000 lenses pretty much on demand. Nikon Pros buy their own. Had I elected to stay with Canon, I would have saved the cost of a new car and gained access to the huge 1000mm FL lens they hire out to Pros. Then I asked myself WTF does a wedding and publication photographer want with such a lens? My wedding cameras all have 18 - 200 lenses on them. I carry a wider lens but have never used it in over 9 months. DxO Optics Pro fix the lens differences and make the images as good as if they'd been shot with a couple of lenses costing 4x the cost these. From my point of view, the 50D is just an evolution of the 20D without fixing any of the real problems facing mid range Canon DSLRs. The D90 is evolutionary also but it evolved from a pretty good camera in the first place so there are less problems brought forward. The movie thing is some sort of "mine's as good as yours" pissing competition I think and really ought to be dropped if they can't get it right. For a first time owner I'd recommend a Pentax or Olympus over either Nikon or Canon but getting into the area of serious photographers, The Nikon system is much better than the Canon stuff but if sports shooting (professionally) is where you're heading, Canon is the only choice that makes any financial sense. Douglas > Canon "consumer grade" lenses produce some pretty shocking CA and > have real problems at middle distance focus. Several of the "L" > lenses should never have been named a Professional lens either. Just to let you know what the Saab-driving, ponytailed marketing geniuses really think of the term "professional": http://www.mendosus.com/jpg/mints.jpg A more useless description would be hard to find. I'm surprised anyone would take the terms "consumer", "prosumer" or "professional" seriously nowadays. -- Jeff R. >> Basically, I like the Nikon D90 better than the Canon Digital Rebel Xsi. >> For me it just feels and handles better and there are more buttons for [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > range. During my evaluation period I also used Pentax, Mamiya and Olympus > cameras. But Nikon has no answer currently for the Canon 5D MKii > It's true the D3 is lower resolution than a 1D Mk III. What isn't clear most > of the time is that at about 8 Mp, Digital exceeds fine grain 35mm film and > can be enlarged to MF sizes due to lack of grain. Posters I've seen made by > a rival with his 1D are not as well defined as posters I make from D3 > images. The 21MP Canon 5D MKii will (more noticeably when cropped) will have a better print image quality than Nikon. I would expect that a new version of the D700 will be out shortly. > There may be some valid argument to buy Canon in the lower and Pro > ranges but image quality is not one of them. Most Professional [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > some sort of "mine's as good as yours" pissing competition I think and > really ought to be dropped if they can't get it right. Can you provide a lot of detail and specifics on why you feel that the Nikon D90 is better than the Canon 50D. Can you also explain why most of the reviews tout the Canon 50D over the Nikon D90. I know that the build quality of the Canon 50D is better but I do feel that for most the build quality of the D90 is good enough. And what about the D300? > For a first time owner I'd recommend a Pentax or Olympus over either > Nikon or Canon but getting into the area of serious photographers, The why? > Nikon system is much better than the Canon stuff but if sports shooting why? > (professionally) is where you're heading, Canon is the only choice that > makes any financial sense. > > Douglas >>> Basically, I like the Nikon D90 better than the Canon Digital Rebel Xsi. >>> For me it just feels and handles better and there are more buttons for [quoted text clipped - 84 lines] >> >> Douglas The bottom line is that in any of these "my camera is better" debates, the skill of those who actually think these things are important is by FAR the limiting factor in the quality of images they produce. I've used cameras from both companies. In the pre-digital era I used a Canon F-1 instead of the Nikon F because it was easier to handle and had equivalent image quality. Right now I prefer Nikon because I do think they have the edge in overall quality and I much prefer the way they handle and feel. IMO, if you can't already make a jaw-dropping photo with a D40 or a Rebel, then it is pointless to debate over which camera company makes the best high-end models. Oh, I just got my new D300... as far as cameras go, it's a true gem!!! Built like a tank, extremely quick, better than expected high ISO performance, and lots of really useful features... all with the best image quality you're going to find in a DX format camera. >>>> Basically, I like the Nikon D90 better than the Canon Digital Rebel Xsi. >>>> For me it just feels and handles better and there are more buttons for [quoted text clipped - 103 lines] > ISO performance, and lots of really useful features... all with the > best image quality you're going to find in a DX format camera. Specifically why did you pay a premium for the D300 over the D90? >Specifically why did you pay a premium for the D300 over the D90? 1. More rugged, better construction quality 2. No movie gimmicks 3. Much better autofocus 4. Quicker and more responsive 5. Better image quality 6. Better metering 7. Ability to fine-tune the AF of individual lenses I guess those are the main reasons. Coming from a D200, the D300 is also very familiar to me. Also I bought a factory refurbished model with a 3 year warranty at a great price, so the difference in price between it and a new D90 wasn't as big. But the D90 is certainly a great camera compared to others in its class. Nikon does a super job with their "plastic fantastics" compared to the competition. >>Specifically why did you pay a premium for the D300 over the D90? > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > class. Nikon does a super job with their "plastic fantastics" > compared to the competition. It appears from reading your posts that you would choose a Nikon D90 over a Canon 50D and spend less money on the body. Why would you do this (if I am correct in my assumption)? >>>Specifically why did you pay a premium for the D300 over the D90? >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > >Why would you do this (if I am correct in my assumption)? Personally, I prefer the Nikons over the Canons. But what it comes down to is what you feel most comfortable with. You'll generally get better results with a camera that is more enjoyable to use and doesn't put any roadblocks in your path. For some people, that may be the less expensive body. For some, the additional features in the more expensive body are more important. >>>>Specifically why did you pay a premium for the D300 over the D90? >>> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > less expensive body. For some, the additional features in the more > expensive body are more important. Okay, I can agree with that. I do prefer the look and feel of the Nikon D90 over the Canon 50D but am still bothered by the reviews that claim the Canon is a better model. What I find even more disturbing it that more Canon lenses are given better review than Nikon. They seem to say that the entire Canon lens line as a group are optically better than Nikon for less money. I also found this surprising. >>>>>Specifically why did you pay a premium for the D300 over the D90? >>>> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] >D90 over the Canon 50D but am still bothered by the reviews that claim the >Canon is a better model. Review are just that: reviews. They "review" the features of a certain product. Only you can determine what works best for you. The D90 and 50D are not in the same class, so a direct comparison between the two isn't really valid. The D90 is a very high end plastic consumer grade camera, while the 50D is a lower-end "semi-pro" camera. The more appropriate comparison is the 50D vs. the D300, in which case the Nikon blows the Canon away. >What I find even more disturbing it that more Canon lenses are given >better review than Nikon. They seem to say that the entire Canon lens >line as a group are optically better than Nikon for less money. I also >found this surprising. Do all the reviews tell you this, or just one? Are you planning to buy the entire line of lenses from either company? The fact is that both of them make some winners and both make some that are not so good. Canon has larger selection of expensive high-end lenses in their "L" line, so perhaps that is why the reviews you see are skewed. However, imo Nikon has more consistent quality across their entire product line. Even their kit lenses are pretty good. >>>>>>Specifically why did you pay a premium for the D300 over the D90? >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > camera. The more appropriate comparison is the 50D vs. the D300, in > which case the Nikon blows the Canon away. Why? I have read in more than one place that the D90 will produce overall the same results and the D300 for less $ and if that is the case you should be able to compare it to the results produced by the 50D as well. >>What I find even more disturbing it that more Canon lenses are given >>better review than Nikon. They seem to say that the entire Canon lens [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > has more consistent quality across their entire product line. Even their > kit lenses are pretty good. The reviews for the Canon 24-105 are consistently very good not matter who reviews it. The 18-105 Nikkor did not fare as well. Now I know that the Canon is a full frame lens and the Nikkor is a Dx but we are speaking about results. And you can use a full frame lens on a DX camera as well. So you can buy the Canon 24-105 for the 50D. If I understand what I am reading (and I may not) a Canon 50D with the Canon 24-105 lens should produce better images than a Nikon D90 with the new 18-105 DX lens. If that is the case then my problem would be this. The Canon combo will produce better results but I like the look and feel and controls of the Nikon. What I really want is the benefits of the D90 with the image quality of the Canon without having to spend much more $$. >>>>>> On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 03:16:17 GMT, measekite >>>>>> <inkystinky@oem.com> [quoted text clipped - 90 lines] > of the Nikon. What I really want is the benefits of the D90 with the > image quality of the Canon without having to spend much more $$. At the sizes you're talking about experts can't tell the difference between shots made with a 39 megapixel Hasselblad and a point and shoot. Do you really think that you're going to be able to tell the difference between shots made with two DSLRs with similar specs and similar lenses? Signature-- --John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) >>>>>>>Specifically why did you pay a premium for the D300 over the D90? >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] >same results and the D300 for less $ and if that is the case you should >be able to compare it to the results produced by the 50D as well. The difference is that the superior construction, speed and autofocus of the D300 will allow you to get those results under more conditions than the D90. >>>What I find even more disturbing it that more Canon lenses are given >>>better review than Nikon. They seem to say that the entire Canon lens [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >Canon is a full frame lens and the Nikkor is a Dx but we are speaking >about results. Perhaps you should be comparing different lenses? >And you can use a full frame lens on a DX camera as well. So you can buy >the Canon 24-105 for the 50D. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Nikon. What I really want is the benefits of the D90 with the image >quality of the Canon without having to spend much more $$. I seriously doubt that the Canon combo will produce better results in real world situations, regardless of what the reviewers say. If you're not comfortable with that particular 18-105 lens, go with a different one that tests better. >> Personally, I prefer the Nikons over the Canons. But what it comes >> down to is what you feel most comfortable with. You'll generally get >> better results with a camera that is more enjoyable to use and doesn't >> put any roadblocks in your path. For some people, that may be the >> less expensive body. For some, the additional features in the more >> expensive body are more important. > Okay, I can agree with that. I do prefer the look and feel of the Nikon > D90 over the Canon 50D but am still bothered by the reviews that claim the > Canon is a better model. > What I find even more disturbing it that more Canon lenses are given > better review than Nikon. They seem to say that the entire Canon lens > line as a group are optically better than Nikon for less money. I also > found this surprising. The question is whether the values the reviewers place on the various aspects of lens performance is the same as you do. If not there's a possibility that they will come to different conclusions, and possibly show a consistent general bias which you don't share. SignatureChris Malcolm >> It's true the D3 is lower resolution than a 1D Mk III. What isn't clear most >> of the time is that at about 8 Mp, Digital exceeds fine grain 35mm film and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >The 21MP Canon 5D MKii will (more noticeably when cropped) will have a >better print image quality than Nikon. ... Only with an extremely good lens at middle aperture and very careful photography (and very large printing). Otherwise the Canon will be lens limited, with little or no difference in prints. See my earlier post to another thread for the gory details. SignatureBest regards, John Panasonic DMC-FZ8, DMC-FZ20, and several others > The big difference between Canon and Nikon is in lenses. Not that you are > going to get much better results with one over the other and not that > either has super large gaping holes in their lens line that will persist > over a reasonable period of time but the difference is in $$$$. It seems > that the majority of Nikon lenses are more costly than Canon. I do not > know what you are getting for the additional money. Usually nothing (or less). For example, Nikon aficionado Ken Rockwell wrote about the wide-angle Canon 10-22 EF-s zoom: "This is a great lens. It's so great it makes me want to swap over to Canon from Nikon, because it's better than my favorite Nikon 12 - 24 mm lens. It's better because it has less distortion and costs less. I paid over $1,000 for my Nikon; this superior 10 - 22 sells for $700." Actually the EF-s 10-22 can be had for around $600, while the Nikon 12-24 is around $825, but the bottom line is that you get nothing for that 35% premium for the Nikon lens. It's a similar situation for the 18-200 lenses from each manufacturer. The Nikon got dinged for distortion much more than the Canon, as well as being dinged for the zoom setting creeping (a problem on many Nikon low end lenses). Yet the Nikon has a street price of around $625, while the Canon goes for around $500. Neither lens is anything to write home about, and both are "Recommended (with reservations)" by dpreview, so what makes the Nikon worth a 25% premium over the Canon? Nikon's low-end lenses are pretty bad in terms of chromatic aberration and focusing, similar to what Canon used to bundle with their very low end film Rebel SLRs, and which I don't think are even available any more. Many of the Canon mid-range lenses have L quality optics, but lack the professional build quality of the L lenses. For mid-range lenses, the Canon lenses tend to have faster and more accurate AF, though of course part of the AF accuracy and speed depends on the body. It was interesting to watch the Canon-Nikon wars back when the EOS system was introduced. You had a lot of pros switching to Canon because of the in-lens focusing motors. Nikon copied that innovation, then Canon came out with their L lenses and the fluorite element lenses that Nikon tried to counter with their low-dispersion element lenses, but never managed to get up to the quality of the Canon lenses. Most of the remaining Nikon professionals made the switch when Nikon insisted that there was no need for full frame digital and said that they had no plans for full frame bodies. Has any pro ever switched to Nikon from Canon? I'm sure it's happened but you never hear about it. It's always stuff like 'I switched to Canon because I wanted a high-resolution full frame body,' or 'I needed to switch to Canon because I'm doing sports photography and Nikon lacks the lenses I need." Where Canon lags Nikon slightly is in flashes. I don't know why Canon hasn't been able to design flashes as good as Nikon's. > For example, Nikon aficionado Ken Rockwell wrote about the wide-angle > Canon 10-22 EF-s zoom: "This is a great lens. It's so great it makes me > want to swap over to Canon from Nikon, because it's better than my > favorite Nikon 12 - 24 mm lens. It's better because it has less > distortion and costs less. I paid over $1,000 for my Nikon; this > superior 10 - 22 sells for $700." ken admits he makes stuff up. he may be lying about this or he may not. > Nikon's low-end lenses are pretty bad in terms of chromatic aberration > and focusing, similar to what Canon used to bundle with their very low [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the Canon lenses tend to have faster and more accurate AF, though of > course part of the AF accuracy and speed depends on the body. and many midrange nikon lenses have ed glass. both companies make decent lenses as well as budget lenses. > It was interesting to watch the Canon-Nikon wars back when the EOS > system was introduced. You had a lot of pros switching to Canon because > of the in-lens focusing motors. Nikon copied that innovation, then Canon > came out with their L lenses and the fluorite element lenses that > Nikon tried to counter with their low-dispersion element lenses, but > never managed to get up to the quality of the Canon lenses. actually they're quite close and canon had l lenses before eos came out. > Most of the > remaining Nikon professionals made the switch when Nikon insisted that > there was no need for full frame digital and said that they had no plans > for full frame bodies. nikon never insisted there was no need for full frame. what they said was that they'd do it when it was cost effective to do so. > Has any pro ever switched to Nikon from Canon? I'm sure it's happened > but you never hear about it. It's always stuff like 'I switched to Canon > because I wanted a high-resolution full frame body,' or 'I needed to > switch to Canon because I'm doing sports photography and Nikon lacks the > lenses I need." actually quite a few have switched to nikon due to the canon 1d mark iii focusing problems. look at photos of the olympics and there are far fewer white lenses than in previous years. [] > It's a similar situation for the 18-200 lenses from each > manufacturer. The Nikon got dinged for distortion much more than the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > reservations)" by dpreview, so what makes the Nikon worth a 25% > premium over the Canon? [] But you had to wait three years for Canon to catch up with Nikon in even making an 18-200mm lens available. Yes, there were early reports of creep, but Ihaven't seen creep in two recent samples of these versatile lenses. It wouldn't surprise me that the reviewers were more familiar with the distortion to be expected from an 18-200mm lens, and so commented less when the Canon lens eventually appeared. In the UK, it seems that there is far less difference in price between the two lenses (about 5%), and the Nikon includes a lens hood and carrying pouch. David > [] >> It's a similar situation for the 18-200 lenses from each [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > creep, but Ihaven't seen creep in two recent samples of these versatile > lenses. See Camera Labs . com. They have a video review and actually demonstrate it. > It wouldn't surprise me that the reviewers were more familiar with the > distortion to be expected from an 18-200mm lens, and so commented less [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > David And what about the remainder of SMS comments where he actually claims that Canon lenses are superior to Nikon. From what I can actually see are the following facts. It appears that Canon have more good lenses available under $1,500 (I do not care and cannot justify lenses that cost more or are over $5,000) and that when compared to a similar Nikon lens the Canon is less money. [] (I wrote) >> But you had to wait three years for Canon to catch up with Nikon in >> even making an 18-200mm lens available. Yes, there were early [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > They have a video review and actually demonstrate it. From a recent sample of the lens, or from three years ago? > And what about the remainder of SMS comments where he actually claims > that Canon lenses are superior to Nikon. From what I can actually > see are the following facts. It appears that Canon have more good > lenses available under $1,500 (I do not care and cannot justify > lenses that cost more or are over $5,000) and that when compared to a > similar Nikon lens the Canon is less money. I assume he has made an objective comparison using criteria which suit the way he wants to use the lenses. You may need to do the same. On the lens I mentioned, the UK cost differential appears to be about 5%, so I would consider the choice of camera and it's handling characteristics to be more important than saving or paying a few pennies more for the lens. As my photography is a hobby, and as my lenses will be used in the field, on trips, near the sea etc. etc. getting rather worn, I would not wish to pay more than about US $600 for either lens or body. Other people's limits will be different. Cheers, David > [] > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > From a recent sample of the lens, or from three years ago? I do not know but I would expect it was a few months after it was released. They try to get their reviews out in a reasonable time. Another poster here has one and experience lens creep but I do not know when she got hers as well. >> And what about the remainder of SMS comments where he actually claims >> that Canon lenses are superior to Nikon. From what I can actually see [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Cheers, > David > And what about the remainder of SMS comments where he actually claims that > Canon lenses are superior to Nikon. Hold on there, I never really said that (or I didn't mean to say it that way). What I meant to say that in each price class for lenses, Canon _usually_ delivers equal or better results at equal or lower cost. If cost were not a consideration, you could probably match up Nikon and Canon lenses pretty closely until you moved up to the professional "big white lenses" where Nikon doesn't compete. If a D-SLR buyer is starting from scratch, with no existing lenses, then it's certainly worth considering the cost differential for lenses of similar quality when choosing which system to buy into. But it's only one of many considerations. As David pointed out, Canon was very late to the game with their 18-200 IS lens, and if someone wanted that type of lens, up until recently that would have been a reason to not even consider Canon. >> And what about the remainder of SMS comments where he actually claims that >> Canon lenses are superior to Nikon. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Canon lenses pretty closely until you moved up to the professional "big >white lenses" where Nikon doesn't compete. Actually, Nikon does compete against the L line. They just don't paint them white. But Canon does have more top pro lenses to choose from, particularly at the very long end. >If a D-SLR buyer is starting from scratch, with no existing lenses, then >it's certainly worth considering the cost differential for lenses of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >lens, up until recently that would have been a reason to not even >consider Canon. As in all things in life, you usually get what you pay for. Pro level Nikon glass is amazingly good, it just doesn't call attention to itself with the embellishment of a "luxury" label and a different color. Nikkors also have a three year warranty vs. one year for the Canons. > Actually, Nikon does compete against the L line. They just don't > paint them white. But Canon does have more top pro lenses to choose > from, particularly at the very long end. Nikon hasn't been able to make any Fluorite element lenses, which greatly limits them in certain market segments, i.e. sports. And of course the Nikon lens mount precludes them from making certain lenses. > As in all things in life, you usually get what you pay for. Pro > level Nikon glass is amazingly good, it just doesn't call attention to > itself with the embellishment of a "luxury" label and a different > color. There's a technical reason for the color of the BWLs. >> Actually, Nikon does compete against the L line. They just don't >> paint them white. But Canon does have more top pro lenses to choose [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > There's a technical reason for the color of the BWLs. Fluorite is rather fragile, isn't it? Nikon has their own extra-low-dispersion glass - look for "ED" on the lenses. They use ED glass even in lenses I can afford, ones without the "L" for Luxury label. But if what is most important to you is having big white lenses, then you have the option of buying Canon. David > Fluorite is rather fragile, isn't it? Nikon has their own > extra-low-dispersion glass - look for "ED" on the lenses. They use ED > glass even in lenses I can afford, ones without the "L" for Luxury label. yes it is fragile, which is why you'll never see flourite glass as the front or rear element. and yes, nikon has ed glass in plenty of lenses (even for the coolpix line). > But if what is most important to you is having big white lenses, then you > have the option of buying Canon. nikon has white lenses too: <http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/lens/af/zoom/af-s_vr_z oom70-200mmf_28g_if/index.htm> >> Nikon hasn't been able to make any Fluorite element lenses, which >> greatly limits them in certain market segments, i.e. sports. And of >> course the Nikon lens mount precludes them from making certain >> lenses. Why would Nikon want to go backwards in optical technology? How many Canon lenses went into space? >>> As in all things in life, you usually get what you pay for. Pro >>> level Nikon glass is amazingly good, it just doesn't call attention [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > glass even in lenses I can afford, ones without the "L" for Luxury > label. Yep! This is why NASA exclusively uses Nikkors. Canon lenses have a nasty habit of the fluorite delaminating when tested under cold and low pressure as in high altitude or the vacuum of space. > Why would Nikon want to go backwards in optical technology? How many Canon > lenses went into space? So that's your criteria for choosing lenses, which ones will work in space? > Yep! This is why NASA exclusively uses Nikkors. Canon lenses have a nasty > habit of the fluorite delaminating when tested under cold and low pressure > as in high altitude or the vacuum of space. I'll keep that in mind the next time I plan a vacation or business trip into space. >> Why would Nikon want to go backwards in optical technology? How many Canon >> lenses went into space? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >I'll keep that in mind the next time I plan a vacation or business trip >into space. <http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/lens/glossary.htm> Nikon developed ED (Extra-low Dispersion) glass to enable the production of lenses that offer superior sharpness and color correction by minimizing chromatic aberration. Put simply, chromatic aberration is a type of image and color dispersion that occurs when light rays of varying wavelengths pass through optical glass. In the past, correcting this problem for telephoto lenses required special optical elements that offer anomalous dispersion characteristics -- specifically calcium fluoride crystals. However, fluorite easily cracks and is sensitive to temperature changes that can adversely affect focusing by altering the lens refractive index. So Nikon designers and engineers put their heads together and came up with ED glass, which offers all the benefits, yet none of the drawbacks of calcium fluorite-based glass. Nikon ED is a silica glass which is fluorite loaded. Nikon Super ED has a higher refractive index than fluorite. SignatureBest regards, John Panasonic DMC-FZ8, DMC-FZ20, and several others >> Why would Nikon want to go backwards in optical technology? How >> many Canon lenses went into space? > > So that's your criteria for choosing lenses, which ones will work in > space? Yep! Who would want a lens that will delaminate when it gets cold or when the atmosphere gets thin when climbing mountains? Even at sea level, the cumulative damage of delamination is unacceptable. >> Yep! This is why NASA exclusively uses Nikkors. Canon lenses have >> a nasty habit of the fluorite delaminating when tested under cold >> and low pressure as in high altitude or the vacuum of space. > > I'll keep that in mind the next time I plan a vacation or business > trip into space. You should. Even Mr.Branson of Virgin Galactic recommends Nikkors on all his upcoming flights. > Yep! This is why NASA exclusively uses Nikkors. I thought the moon landing used Hasselblads . >> Yep! This is why NASA exclusively uses Nikkors. > > I thought the moon landing used Hasselblads . Yep! However Nikons including DSLR's have been used on most missions, including the current series of Shuttle missions. http://www.nikonweb.com/nasaf4/ SignatureRegards, Savageduck >>> Yep! This is why NASA exclusively uses Nikkors. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > the current series of Shuttle missions. > http://www.nikonweb.com/nasaf4/ Seems only the nikin website seems to see themselves are "exclusively" being used ;-) http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/metadata/camera.htm I wonder if they choose the camera depending on what they are offered. >>>> Yep! This is why NASA exclusively uses Nikkors. >>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >I wonder if they choose the camera depending on what they are offered. Government contracts usually require a product to meet some rigorous specifications. If the the common belief is that they always "go to the lowest bidder" were true, then we'd see a lot of Canons on NASA missions because they cost less than Nikons. However, Canon is the official camera of the NFL. (Which means that they pay a lot of money to wear that badge...) >>>> Yep! This is why NASA exclusively uses Nikkors. >>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > I wonder if they choose the camera depending on what they are offered. You might have noticed, the link you provided is at the bottom of the Nikon URL you responded to. That somewhat belies your implication. Anyway, why wouldn't a Nikon site be self promoting? The cameras used (of all makes used) have for the most part been developed from models tried & tested in the field and studio. Then some had special adaptations made and some were used stock. Also there were specialized lenses developed exclusively for NASA. If they were ever chosen on "what they offered" it was probably based on the adapability to special purpose and durability. Though I have a hard time thinking of a Linhof as durable! SignatureRegards, Savageduck >>>>> Yep! This is why NASA exclusively uses Nikkors. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Nikon URL you responded to. That somewhat belies your implication. > Anyway, why wouldn't a Nikon site be self promoting? There's nothing wroing with self promoting, I just doubt that a nikon site would advertise canon and vica versa. > The cameras used (of all makes used) have for the most part been developed > from models tried & tested in the field and studio. Then some had special > adaptations made and some were used stock. > > Also there were specialized lenses developed exclusively for NASA. Which won;t appear on the consumer models much like the car racing industry. > If they were ever chosen on "what they offered" it was probably based on > the adapability to special purpose and durability. Though I have a hard > time thinking of a Linhof as durable! What I meant ws does NASA say the a camera manufacture here's what we want.. now how much do we have to pay you, or whether NASA gets a serious discount as an advertiser. I've heard that Aple don;t pay anyone for their product placement. (have you ever noticed the majority of the 'good guys' use Macs while the baddies tend to use PC's in TV series and dramas. >>>>>> Yep! This is why NASA exclusively uses Nikkors. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > the baddies tend > to use PC's in TV series and dramas. I would imagine NASA would have proposed a set of purpose driven specifications and opened bids from manufacturers able to submit equipment meeting those stringent specifications. That would be for items ranging from washers, to fabrics, to cameras. Manufacturers not able to meet those specs, or compete with bids would not be represented on that astral billboard. As far as the "good guys" using Macs go, why wouldn't they? I do. All kidding aside. I thing the Mac exposure, other than the "Seinfeldt" placement, was due to the early adoption of Macs in professional movie and TV production and the familiarity of production staff with Macs. Though today there is little to choose from, given that production software can be run on most platforms without issues. SignatureRegards, Savageduck > All kidding aside. I thing the Mac exposure, other than the "Seinfeldt" > placement, was due to the early adoption of Macs in professional movie > and TV production and the familiarity of production staff with Macs. > Though today there is little to choose from, given that production > software can be run on most platforms without issues. It's still an issue. I have a nephew who's a producer and also a freelance editor. A lot of stuff like commercials and simpler movies can be made using Apple's Final Cut Pro, which is a lot cheaper and easier to use than the professional Avid products, but it runs only on the Mac. One big annoyance was when Apple dropped the Cardbus slot from their notebooks (beginning with the Intel platform boxes) because the high end digital movie cameras use memory cards that can be inserted directly into the notebooks slot on scene, backed up, and reviewed. Now there are add-on readers for these cards, but they're expensive and not USB bus powered. This caused some editors to switch to Avid on the Windows platform, though now very few Windows boxes have CardBus slots, so the decontenting has been equalized. > One big annoyance was when Apple dropped the Cardbus slot from their > notebooks (beginning with the Intel platform boxes) because the high end > digital movie cameras use memory cards that can be inserted directly > into the notebooks slot on scene, backed up, and reviewed. there are expresscard card readers. > Now there are > add-on readers for these cards, but they're expensive and not USB bus > powered. nonsense. they are not expensive and they either fit in the express card slot or are usb and bus powered. where do you come up with this stuff? > This caused some editors to switch to Avid on the Windows > platform, though now very few Windows boxes have CardBus slots, so the > decontenting has been equalized. expresscard is common on most laptops these days. here's an article from *three* years ago discussing the change: <http://www.notebookreview.com/default.asp?newsID=2849> A number of notebook manufacturers are now exclusively including Express Card slots in their newer models and doing away with the PCMCIA slot. >> What I meant ws does NASA say the a camera manufacture here's what we >> want.. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > specs, or compete with bids would not be represented on that astral > billboard. Yes I agree and if say canon or Nikon camera were used I don;t think those specs would apply to off the shelf cameras. i.e if NASA want a lens cap do withstand 10 atmosphere pressure at 1000 deg C I don;t think the lens caps onn a camera any of us are likely to buy would stand up to the same spec so I don;t really think it matters who NASA chooses. I'm sure I read an artical about the Hassblads that were taken to the moon and how they cost so mutch due to modifications. I think battries are the big problems nowerdays, as they are on the Mars rovers let them get too cold and you won;t get any pictures, and it doesn;t matter how great your optics are. > As far as the "good guys" using Macs go, why wouldn't they? I do. Me too, in fact I use three :-D > All kidding aside. I thing the Mac exposure, other than the "Seinfeldt" > placement, was due to the early adoption of Macs in professional movie and > TV production and the familiarity of production staff with Macs. I don;t really see that being a significant factor. I think it's about style, and image. > Though today there is little to choose from, given that production > software can be run on most platforms without issues. Not sure about that, I'm not really involved in that but you can certainkly do things easier on a Mac (well the average joe and the pro-sumer) for an affordable price. >>> What I meant ws does NASA say the a camera manufacture here's what >>> we want.. [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > pro-sumer) for > an affordable price. OK, what things can you do easier on a Mac for a more affordable price? Signature-- --John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) >> Not sure about that, I'm not really involved in that but you can >> certainkly do things easier on a Mac (well the average joe and the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > OK, what things can you do easier on a Mac for a more affordable > price? Most things, I need to do. I use iPhoto to store photos, I use iMovie for videos editing or use quicktime pro. And reliability I find is much higher on a Mac, than PCs in general. I've not had a virus since about 1990, I can;t even remmeber but on the PC at work I get a few a week, lukily the virus protection catches it, but it needs paying for. >> Yep! This is why NASA exclusively uses Nikkors. > > I thought the moon landing used Hasselblads . Please be more careful when trimming posts. I did not say the words you quoted, and my name should have been removed from the attributions in case anyone is mislead. Thanks, David >>> Yep! This is why NASA exclusively uses Nikkors. >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > David OK sorry. >>>> Yep! This is why NASA exclusively uses Nikkors. >>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > OK sorry. OK. Easy to do, I appreciate. David >> Actually, Nikon does compete against the L line. They just don't >> paint them white. But Canon does have more top pro lenses to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Nikon hasn't been able to make any Fluorite element lenses, which > greatly limits them in certain market segments, i.e. sports. In what way does it "greatly limit them"? > And of > course the Nikon lens mount precludes them from making certain > lenses. Which lenses are those? >> As in all things in life, you usually get what you pay for. Pro >> level Nikon glass is amazingly good, it just doesn't call attention [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > There's a technical reason for the color of the BWLs. And that is? Signature-- --John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) >>> Actually, Nikon does compete against the L line. They just don't >>> paint them white. But Canon does have more top pro lenses to [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > And that is? See "http://tinyurl.com/jfgirpd". >>>> Actually, Nikon does compete against the L line. They just don't >>>> paint them white. But Canon does have more top pro lenses to [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > See "http://tinyurl.com/jfgirpd". So you admit that you were talking out your bunghole. Signature-- --John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) >>>> There's a technical reason for the color of the BWLs. >>> And that is? I'm going to stick my neck out here and posit a guess: because they get less hot in the sun Doug McDonald >>>>> There's a technical reason for the color of the BWLs. >>>> And that is? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Doug McDonald We've got a winner! >>>>>> There's a technical reason for the color of the BWLs. >>>>> And that is? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > We've got a winner! The truth is they do get less hot in the Sun and are colder in the winter but the reason they do this is it makes sense from the marketing department. Some do not like the white lenses and not all L series are white. >> See "http://tinyurl.com/jfgirpd". > > So you admit that you were talking out your bunghole. Since you want to know the answers, which have been repeated probably 1000 times in this newsgroup and on the web, you can find it out yourself. Here's how to do it. Go to Google and type in the question you want answered, i.e. "why are some canon lenses white" and then click on "I'm Feeling Lucky." Your answer will appear. If you want to learn about why fluorite is better than extra dispersion (ED), type in "fluorite advantage extra dispersion" and click on "I'm Feeling Lucky." Your answer will appear. The lens mount question is a little more complex. You can start by searching for an AF 50mm f1.2 lens for both Canon and Nikon, and by investigating why Nikon lenses tend to cost more for the same focal length and speed. >>> See "http://tinyurl.com/jfgirpd". >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 1000 times in this newsgroup and on the web, you can find it out > yourself. You're the one presenting the argument, it's up to you to defend it. If you make it and then fall back on "DAGS" then you end up looking like a jackass. > Here's how to do it. Go to Google and type in the question you want > answered, i.e. "why are some canon lenses white" and then click on [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > investigating why Nikon lenses tend to cost more for the same focal > length and speed. <plonk> Signature-- --John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) > You're the one presenting the argument, it's up to you to defend it. I'm not arguing, I'm just stating incontrovertible facts that no one could possibly dispute. >> You're the one presenting the argument, it's up to you to defend it. > >I'm not arguing, I'm just stating incontrovertible facts that no one >could possibly dispute. I think the point is, SMS, is that just because you can look something up on Google doesn't make it an incontrovertible fact. Flourite has advantages and disadvantages. Another incontrovertible fact is that Nikon does quite well with their professional line in spite of the lack of fluorite. >>> You're the one presenting the argument, it's up to you to defend it. >> I'm not arguing, I'm just stating incontrovertible facts that no one [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Nikon does quite well with their professional line in spite of the > lack of fluorite. Yes, the ED glass is good, but it isn't as good as the Fluorite. >>>> You're the one presenting the argument, it's up to you to defend it. >>> I'm not arguing, I'm just stating incontrovertible facts that no one [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Yes, the ED glass is good, but it isn't as good as the Fluorite. Zero support (as usual). Just because you say so? LOL SignatureBest regards, John Panasonic DMC-FZ8, DMC-FZ20, and several others >>>> You're the one presenting the argument, it's up to you to defend it. >>> I'm not arguing, I'm just stating incontrovertible facts that no one [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Yes, the ED glass is good, but it isn't as good as the Fluorite. So you are saying that you can take 50 photos with a Nikon and a $1500 lens and then take a Canon with an equivalent L series lens all shot in the same way and then print them 16x25 after you mix them up in a pile and with more than a chance hit pick out what was shot with what placed in a pile of 50 each and one pile would be mostly Canon and the other mostly Nikon and you would know which pile is which. I am hoping your answer would be No because I do not think you can. >> You're the one presenting the argument, it's up to you to defend it. > >I'm not arguing, I'm just stating incontrovertible facts that no one >could possibly dispute. ROTFL! SignatureBest regards, John Panasonic DMC-FZ8, DMC-FZ20, and several others > > You're the one presenting the argument, it's up to you to defend it. > > I'm not arguing, I'm just stating incontrovertible facts that no one > could possibly dispute. oh please. it gets disputed every time you spew the same canon mantra. > So you admit that you were talking out your bunghole. should be quite obvious by now. >> See "http://tinyurl.com/jfgirpd". > >So you admit that you were talking out your bunghole. Welcome to the party. SignatureBest regards, John Panasonic DMC-FZ8, DMC-FZ20, and several others >>> See "http://tinyurl.com/jfgirpd". >> >>So you admit that you were talking out your bunghole. > >Welcome to the party. You should know, you've been hosting that party for a long time. >> Actually, Nikon does compete against the L line. They just don't >> paint them white. But Canon does have more top pro lenses to choose [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >greatly limits them in certain market segments, i.e. sports. And of >course the Nikon lens mount precludes them from making certain lenses. Actually, Nikon does quite well with sports now that they have figured out how to make low noise high ISO bodies. You're seeing more and more big white lenses being replaced by non-attention-getting black Nikkor lenses at sporting events. How is the lens mount significant with regard to making certain lenses? >> As in all things in life, you usually get what you pay for. Pro >> level Nikon glass is amazingly good, it just doesn't call attention to >> itself with the embellishment of a "luxury" label and a different >> color. > >There's a technical reason for the color of the BWLs. Theoretically to reflect heat. Then again, it can be argued that the Nikkors don't need that because they don't have to rely on those fragile fluorite elements to achieve their image quality. Nikon basically invented ED glass as an alternative to fluorite. It seems that more and more lens makers are using ED because it has some big advantages. > >Nikon hasn't been able to make any Fluorite element lenses, which > >greatly limits them in certain market segments, i.e. sports. And of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > more big white lenses being replaced by non-attention-getting black > Nikkor lenses at sporting events. yep, and partly because of the 1d mark iii issues. > How is the lens mount significant with regard to making certain > lenses? it isn't. he seems to think that because canon *can* make a 50mm f/1.0 lens that the nikon mount is inferior. > >There's a technical reason for the color of the BWLs. > > Theoretically to reflect heat. Then again, it can be argued that the > Nikkors don't need that because they don't have to rely on those > fragile fluorite elements to achieve their image quality. exactly. it's a different set of tradeoffs. > Nikon basically invented ED glass as an alternative to fluorite. It > seems that more and more lens makers are using ED because it has some > big advantages. indeed. >>> Actually, Nikon does compete against the L line. They just don't >>> paint them white. But Canon does have more top pro lenses to choose [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > seems that more and more lens makers are using ED because it has some > big advantages. What are they? [] >> Theoretically to reflect heat. Then again, it can be argued that the >> Nikkors don't need that because they don't have to rely on those [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > What are they? See: http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/lens/glossary.htm David >>>> Actually, Nikon does compete against the L line. They just don't >>>> paint them white. But Canon does have more top pro lenses to choose [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > >What are they? Basically, the same or similar refractive properties of fluorite but without the fragility and temperature sensitivity. >>> Nikon basically invented ED glass as an alternative to fluorite. It >>> seems that more and more lens makers are using ED because it has some [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Basically, the same or similar refractive properties of fluorite but > without the fragility and temperature sensitivity. There is a wide range of ED fluorine-doped glasses. If you plot their properties on a two-dimensional plot, they form a sort of arrow pointing at the single point for fluorite. BUT ... there is a big gap between the most exotic of them and fluorite itself. Thus, fluorite is indeed a unique and powerful design tool. Doug McDonald >>>> Nikon basically invented ED glass as an alternative to fluorite. It >>>> seems that more and more lens makers are using ED because it has some [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > and fluorite itself. Thus, fluorite is indeed a unique > and powerful design tool. Nikon also lacked the stabilized super tele lenses for years. They have them now and a new Nano crystal coating plus ED glass. SignaturePaul Furman www.edgehill.net www.baynatives.com all google groups messages filtered due to spam >> Actually, Nikon does compete against the L line. They just don't >> paint them white. But Canon does have more top pro lenses to choose >> from, particularly at the very long end. > > Nikon hasn't been able to make any Fluorite element lenses, which > greatly limits them in certain market segments, i.e. sports. And of What other market segments other than sports and why does that limit them? > course the Nikon lens mount precludes them from making certain lenses. Where and why does the Nikon lens mount preclude them from making what kind of certain lenses? >> As in all things in life, you usually get what you pay for. Pro level >> Nikon glass is amazingly good, it just doesn't call attention to itself >> with the embellishment of a "luxury" label and a different color. So are you saying that you can take a Nikkor $5,000 200-400mm lens and a 70-300mm lens and shoot the same thing with the same body in the same what at 300mm using the same f stop and then print them at 16x20, matt and frame them and then hang them on a wall and you would see a dramatic and significant different in the two prints handing side by side? > There's a technical reason for the color of the BWLs. >So are you saying that you can take a Nikkor $5,000 200-400mm lens and a >70-300mm lens and shoot the same thing with the same body in the same >what at 300mm using the same f stop and then print them at 16x20, matt >and frame them and then hang them on a wall and you would see a dramatic >and significant different in the two prints handing side by side? That depends on what you mean by "dramatic." >>So are you saying that you can take a Nikkor $5,000 200-400mm lens and a >>70-300mm lens and shoot the same thing with the same body in the same [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > That depends on what you mean by "dramatic." Noticeable where you can see it when you are not pixel peeping. >>>So are you saying that you can take a Nikkor $5,000 200-400mm lens and a >>>70-300mm lens and shoot the same thing with the same body in the same [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Noticeable where you can see it when you are not pixel peeping. That also depends on what you mean by "pixel peeping." Depending on the f stop and the skill of the photographer, I would say that you would see a definite difference between the 200-400 and the 70-300. For one thing, you need to stop the 70-300 down to f/8 or so before you get maximum sharpness. With the 200-400 you can use larger apertures and thus have better control over DOF. Don't even try to use f/4.0 with the 70-300.... it ain't there! :-) >>> And what about the remainder of SMS comments where he actually claims that >>> Canon lenses are superior to Nikon. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > color. Nikkors also have a three year warranty vs. one year for > the Canons. Just had a discussion with a friend of mine who is a pro photographer. He shoots with a Nikon F5, a Canon 5Dmlii, and an RB67. We had a discussion over lenses. Part of the discussion was over the Nikkor 24x120 that he has used for 8 years. I told him that is made the Terrible List of Ken Rockwells worst of the worst of Nikkor lenses and that Ken owns and tested this lens saying it is soft etc etc and the image quality is not good when compared against other Nikon Alternatives. My friend claimed that Ken was wrong. That the lens is "razor sharp". He further stated you can put this lens up against a $5,000 Nikkor lens and print 16x20 and not see any difference in image quality. Now I find this hard to believe since other reviews while not as harsh against the 25x120 as Ken did note that it is not one of Nikons best. Also I questioned my friend on why would so many pro photographers buy $5,000 Nikkor lenses if the $1,000 ones produced just as good a quality. His reply was they just wanted it and then saw stuff that really was not there to jusify what they did like the audiophile who pays $20,000 for a speaker system that does sound great but are the only ones who can here the difference between that and a system for $10,000. I am not a pro. I do not want to make a mistake. I do want to print up to 16x25. I do not want to push myself for a full frame camera unless that is what i need to do what I just described. I own a Nikon F2A but the lenses are not autofocus so I may sell the system. I no longer want anything that is not autofocus and autometering. So you can say I am starting from scratch. I bought the Nikon over Canon at the time because I liked the look and feel better and I thought at that time Nikon was better but that appears to be debatable. That said I narrowed my search down to the Nikon D90 (unless I absolutely need full frame to get top image quality 16x25 in which case the Canon 5d2 is the only ball game at the under $3,000 price that I am not happy about spending) and the Canon 50D that is known to be built better but the D90 build appears to be good enough for my use. The D90 feels somewhat better and there are non modal buttons for all of the every day commands. Here are the lenses I am considering with the camera. If any of you would like to recommend a different lens in one of the places please state which one and the reason. * AF-S DX Zoom-NIKKOR 12-24mm f/4G IF-ED $800 * AF-S DX VR Zoom-NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED $620 * AF-S VR Micro-NIKKOR 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED $730 Optional * AF-S VR Zoom-NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED $470 > That said I narrowed my search down to the Nikon D90 (unless I absolutely > need full frame to get top image quality 16x25 in which case the Canon 5d2 [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Optional > * AF-S VR Zoom-NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED $470 That will give you a good working bag. The NG critics and "Pro" glass heavy breathers will sigh, but you will be able to produce the images you want. My current set up is as follows: D70 D300 + MB-D10 18-70mm Nikkor DX (D70 kit) 12-24mm Nikkor 35mm f2.0 Nikkor 24-120mm VR Nikkor (which is my general use lens) 80-400mm VR Nikkor (Oh so slow! but does Ok long) 70-200mm VR SB-800 >> That said I narrowed my search down to the Nikon D90 (unless I absolutely >> need full frame to get top image quality 16x25 in which case the Canon 5d2 [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > 70-200mm VR > SB-800 Read the Ken Rockwell review on your general use lens, the 24-120VR and let me know if he has a point or if it is just bullshit. You use it all of the time and I would like to know what you see. >>> That said I narrowed my search down to the Nikon D90 (unless I absolutely >>> need full frame to get top image quality 16x25 in which case the Canon 5d2 [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > let me know if he has a point or if it is just bullshit. You use it all > of the time and I would like to know what you see. Rockwell as we all know has varied and sometimes bizarre opinions, some which seem reliable and others questionable. Even though I find his site useful I would not depend on him or any other reviewer to drive the choices you will ultimately make. When I read his opinion condemning an item I have chosen to buy and found to be perfectly sound for my needs, I wonder about his motivation. I have found the 24-120mm VR to be very versatile, and if used at f7.1-f14 it produces reasonably sharp results. I know there have been divided opinions on this lens, but I think some of those reviewers are blinded by the promise of the more expensive, higher spec lenses. This gives me a reasonable working lens which produces acceptable images, with VR at a reasonable cost. Here are some shots straight from Lightroom with NEF to jpg conversion only, see what you think. They are large files, but they demonstrate what the lens can do. Here is one with a D70 http://snipr.com/9rorc-et15rk and one from a D300 http://snipr.com/9rosw-rgrgax Then make up your own mind. SignatureRegards, Savageduck >>>> That said I narrowed my search down to the Nikon D90 (unless I absolutely >>>> need full frame to get top image quality 16x25 in which case the Canon 5d2 [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > condemning an item I have chosen to buy and found to be perfectly sound > for my needs, I wonder about his motivation. I agree with that but when the general opinions of many others appear to support what he is stating then it is time to take a pause and attempt to prove or disprove what was said. All of the reviews and opinions cannot be totally wrong. > I have found the 24-120mm VR to be very versatile, and if used at > f7.1-f14 it produces reasonably sharp results. I know there have been That is about 3 stops. It seems that the remainder of the stops and the areas out of the center are not very good. Yet this range of this lens (too bad there is not a great 24-135VR at a good price that great) is one of the more versatile in the FX line. I do not think there is an FX designation on lenses but to separate them from DX I use the term. > divided opinions on this lens, but I think some of those reviewers are > blinded by the promise of the more expensive, higher spec lenses. This [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Then make up your own mind. >>>> And what about the remainder of SMS comments where he actually claims that >>>> Canon lenses are superior to Nikon. [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] >further stated you can put this lens up against a $5,000 Nikkor lens and >print 16x20 and not see any difference in image quality. I think you'll find that Ken Rockwell is wrong on a lot of things. >Now I find this hard to believe since other reviews while not as harsh >against the 25x120 as Ken did note that it is not one of Nikons best. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >speaker system that does sound great but are the only ones who can here >the difference between that and a system for $10,000. It is true that under ideal conditions, a less expensive lens can perform as well as a more expensive one. By ideal conditions, I mean good lighting and stopped down to the "sweet spot" aperture for that lens. What the more expensive glass buys you is usually a larger maximum aperture and better image quality at all apertures. That can be important for professionals who don't want to limit themselves to those "ideal" conditions to get the best possible images. The better lenses are also built better, which becomes more important over time as the lens gets heavy use. >I am not a pro. I do not want to make a mistake. I do want to print up >to 16x25. I do not want to push myself for a full frame camera unless [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >build appears to be good enough for my use. The D90 feels somewhat better >and there are non modal buttons for all of the every day commands. If the D90 feels better to you, then you'll be happier and more likely to use it. IMO the D300 is better, but you really can't go wrong with any of the Nikons. It all depends on what set of features is most important to you. >Here are the lenses I am considering with the camera. If any of you would >like to recommend a different lens in one of the places please state which >one and the reason. > > * AF-S DX Zoom-NIKKOR 12-24mm f/4G IF-ED $800 Highly recommended. It is probably the best DX format wide zoom available. I love mine. > * AF-S DX VR Zoom-NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED $620 I don't have this one, but everyone I know who does loves it. Its drawback is the relatively slow speed, but then again it is very compact and good to use for a general-use lens in good lighting. It seems to be pretty good in terms of image quality, but it apparently lacks the "super" quality of Nikon's more expensive professional zooms. > * AF-S VR Micro-NIKKOR 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED $730 I would love to have this one. I have the 60mm 2.8 Micro-Nikkor (without VR) and it is one of the the sharpest lenses I've seen. > Optional > * AF-S VR Zoom-NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED $470 I've also got this one. It is very nice for a lightweight tele that can be hand held. However, I would like to replace mine with the 70-200 VR f/2.8 for reasons I stated a few parapraphs above. I would consider the Nikon 1.4x teleconverter to regain the 300mm reach. Good luck. Buying a new system is always exciting! >>>>> And what about the remainder of SMS comments where he actually claims that >>>>> Canon lenses are superior to Nikon. [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > I think you'll find that Ken Rockwell is wrong on a lot of things. So what is your opinion of the 24-120Vr >>Now I find this hard to believe since other reviews while not as harsh >>against the 25x120 as Ken did note that it is not one of Nikons best. [quoted text clipped - 71 lines] > > Good luck. Buying a new system is always exciting! > So what is your opinion of the 24-120Vr Rockwell wasn't talking about the VR, he was talking about the 24-120 if he's been using it for eight years, since the VR version came out in 2003 or 2004. The 24-120 was widely regarded as a very poor lens, and if all Nikon did to it was to add VR, then no doubt it's still just as bad. I remember when Nikon released the 24-120 in 1997, then abruptly recalled it, then re-released it. >> So what is your opinion of the 24-120Vr > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I remember when Nikon released the 24-120 in 1997, then abruptly > recalled it, then re-released it. He was talking about "24-120mm VR (2003-today)" this. And I do not understand why my friend, a pro, has used it for many years and says it is razor sharp. If something is that bad as has been widely reported than it would not be marginal to tell that it is soft being that it is supposed to be horrible which infers obvious. [] > If something is that bad as has been widely reported than it would > not be marginal to tell that it is soft being that it is supposed to > be horrible which infers obvious. 24-120VR Perhaps some samples were worse than others? After all, if Nikon can make small improvements during a production run which result in fewer rejects or returns, I'm sure they will, and the average quality level may have improved over time. David > [] >> If something is that bad as has been widely reported than it would [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > David I understand that but this is a widely report believe by many people so it just cannot be a few bad ones over a short period of time. >So what is your opinion of the 24-120Vr I can't honestly say, I've never used it. >>>> And what about the remainder of SMS comments where he actually >>>> claims that Canon lenses are superior to Nikon. [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > Nikkor lens and print 16x20 and not see any difference in image > quality. There is no Nikkor lens that has a focal length between 24 and 120mm that costs $5000. The most expensive Nikkor listed in that range is The 24mm PC-E at $1899 and you're paying for the tilt and shift capability on that one. Going down a bit, in the 1500-1800 range you have the 70-200 f/2.8 and the 24-70 f/2.8--in both cases you're paying for aperture. So I don't understand what he's on about with "$5000 Nikkor". You might find http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml to be of interest. Not directly applicable but he did some blind testing comparing 13x19s from a Hasselblad with a Phase 1 back and a Canon G10 point and shoot and the people he showed them to couldn't tell the difference--he says that they were people with experience in photography, printing, etc and so knew what to look for. Shows that there isn't any direct relationship between cost of equipment and quality of the finished print. > Now I find this hard to believe since other reviews while not as > harsh > against the 25x120 as Ken did note that it is not one of Nikons > best. Doesn't have to be one of the best to be good enough. So far few cameras have enough sensor resolution that the lens becomes the limiting value (take a look in the Canon section on http://www.photozone.de they test some of the same lenses on a 350d and a 50d so you can see how much difference sensor resolution makes in the test results), at least not on center. > Also I questioned my friend on why would so many pro photographers > buy [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > only ones who can here the difference between that and a system for > $10,000. Uh, the only Nikkor lenses costing $5000 or more are the 400/2.8 and the 500s and higher. On those you're paying for aperture and focal length. In the 24-120 range you may go as high as 1800 or so but there again you're paying for aperture or special features (for example tilt and shift). The more expensive lenses generally also have more durable mounts--more metal, less plastic, possibly some weather sealing, all of which can mean the difference between getting the shot and not getting it. > I am not a pro. I do not want to make a mistake. I do want to > up to 16x25. I do not want to push myself for a full frame camera > unless that is what i need to do what I just described. Is there anywhere in the area that you can rent photo equipment? Might be worth spending a few bucks on a day's rental and do some test shots and make sure. > I own a Nikon F2A but the lenses are not autofocus so I may sell the > system. I no longer want anything that is not autofocus and > autometering. If you're shooting for 16x25 you're likely going to end up manual-focusing with a magnifier anyway. Autofocus is good but it's not necessarily _that_ good, especially if you don't have a body that allows you to fine-tune the focus for individual lenses. I wouldn't be too quick to toss the old lenses. > So you can say I am starting from scratch. I bought > the Nikon over Canon at the time because I liked the look and feel > better and I thought at that time Nikon was better but that appears > to be debatable. Both do fine. > That said I narrowed my search down to the Nikon D90 (unless I > absolutely need full frame to get top image quality 16x25 in which [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > use. The D90 feels somewhat better and there are non modal buttons > for all of the every day commands. One point to consider--the D300 and the 50D allow you to fine tune the autofocus for individual lenses (by type, not by serial number)--if you're printing 16x25 on a regular basis you may want that. I'm a Canon shooter so can't really make recommendations on the quality of the lenses below, but focal length and aperture is another story. > Here are the lenses I am considering with the camera. If any of you > would like to recommend a different lens in one of the places please > state which one and the reason. > > * AF-S DX Zoom-NIKKOR 12-24mm f/4G IF-ED $800 Take a hard look at the 10-20 Sigma. Performance is comparable but you get another 2mm at the wide end, which has more effect than you might expect. I was surprised to find that the 10-22 Canon is my favorite lens. > * AF-S DX VR Zoom-NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED $620 Note that to get that kind of zoom range they had to make compromises (not just Nikon--Canon, Sigma, etc all had to). If you break that range down into two lenses you may find that you're getting less distortion, chromatic aberration, and vignetting at the sacrifice of convenience. If you haven't checked out the tests at http://www.photozone.de you might want to--there's enough information there that you should be able to figure out whether the compromises are going to be a problem for you. Also, if you want maximum versatility in a single lens and are willing to accept the compromises, you might want to look at the 18-270 Tamron. Note that PTLens will autofix most of the distortion and chromatic aberration, but you'll lose a tiny increment of resolution in the process. > * AF-S VR Micro-NIKKOR 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED $730 Can't go wrong with a 100 or so macro IMO. > Optional > * AF-S VR Zoom-NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED $470 I don't know how the Nikkor in that range compares to the Canon, but the Canon is a very nice lens. Something you haven't mentioned is a fast portrait lens--you might want to look into a 50 or 85mm 1.8 or faster. It's very convenient to be able to cut down the depth of field when you need to. Signature-- --John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) >>>>> And what about the remainder of SMS comments where he actually >>>>> claims that Canon lenses are superior to Nikon. [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > paying for aperture. So I don't understand what he's on about with > "$5000 Nikkor". He did not say that the $5,000 lens has the same range of focal length. He is just speaking about image quality and this lens being soft and not as sharp as others. > You might find http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml > to be of interest. Not directly applicable but he did some blind [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > there isn't any direct relationship between cost of equipment and > quality of the finished print. That is bullshit. I have a Canon P&S, an S5 that is about the same in image quality as a G10 give or take. Now in a 4x6 and maybe an 5x7 you have to look a little fine but a DSLR printing a 13x19 cropped somewhat it is a no brainer. There is a difference. And that is at 100 ISO. Raise the ISO to 200 or 400 and the difference is dramatic. >> Now I find this hard to believe since other reviews while not as >> harsh [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > and a 50d so you can see how much difference sensor resolution makes > in the test results), at least not on center. I looked at Photozone and quickly read about a slew of Canon and Nikon lenses. One think was the review of the 18-200 Nikkor was not that favorable and no review was available on the Canon counterpart. Based on a quick lookse of both Canon and Nikon lenses I distinctly got the impression that the overall reviews of the Canon lens line was more favorable over the Nikon lens line. This sort of surprised me as I thought they would be about equal. Ok so there were more stars after the Canon lenses than the Nikon counterpart but what does this actually mean. I do not know. >> Also I questioned my friend on why would so many pro photographers >> buy [quoted text clipped - 100 lines] > > -- >I looked at Photozone and quickly read about a slew of Canon and Nikon >lenses. One think was the review of the 18-200 Nikkor was not that [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Ok so there were more stars after the Canon lenses than the Nikon >counterpart but what does this actually mean. I do not know. Of course, that depends on the actual lenses being evaluated, and strangely enough, who is doing the testing. Don't assume a certain website is unbiased just because they say so. >>>>> And what about the remainder of SMS comments where he actually >>>>> claims that Canon lenses are superior to Nikon. [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > paying for aperture. So I don't understand what he's on about with > "$5000 Nikkor". Not one lens in that range but it would be easy to spend $5,000 on: 12-24/5.6, 24/2.8/AF, 28/2, 28/4.5/fish, 35/1.4, 45/2.8, 50/1.2, 80/5.6/EL-Nikkor/bellows 85/1.4/AF, 85/TS, 105/2.8/VR/Micro, 150/4.5/bellows, 70-200/2.8/VR, 75-150/3.5/Series-E for a manual compact tele zoom. That's what I use for 'general shooting' in this zoom range <g>. > You might find http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml > to be of interest. Not directly applicable but he did some blind > testing comparing 13x19s from a Hasselblad with a Phase 1 back and a > Canon G10 point and shoot and the people he showed them to couldn't > tell the difference--he says that they were people with experience in > photography, printing, etc and so knew what to look for. That comparison proves it's possible to take pictures where it doesn't matter and fool people. Try setting two competing photogs out to take the most impressive shot they can manage of a difficult scene (low light, high contrast, motion...) with those cameras & see if you can tell them apart. > Shows that > there isn't any direct relationship between cost of equipment and [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Doesn't have to be one of the best to be good enough. At f/8 yes, but the differences are substantial wide open and in the corners, when subject to flare, etc. > So far few > cameras have enough sensor resolution that the lens becomes the > limiting value (take a look in the Canon section on > http://www.photozone.de they test some of the same lenses on a 350d > and a 50d so you can see how much difference sensor resolution makes > in the test results), at least not on center. They show wide open corner crops too, as I recall. >> Also I questioned my friend on why would so many pro photographers >> buy [quoted text clipped - 98 lines] > want to look into a 50 or 85mm 1.8 or faster. It's very convenient > to be able to cut down the depth of field when you need to. SignaturePaul Furman www.edgehill.net www.baynatives.com all google groups messages filtered due to spam > [] >> It's a similar situation for the 18-200 lenses from each [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> premium over the Canon? > [] > But you had to wait three years for Canon to catch up with Nikon in even > making an 18-200mm lens available. Yes, there were early reports of > creep, but Ihaven't seen creep in two recent samples of these versatile > lenses. > It wouldn't surprise me that the reviewers were more familiar with the > distortion to be expected from an 18-200mm lens, and so commented less > when the Canon lens eventually appeared. It's also the case that quality in wide range zooms is an area where the technology is developing rapidly, so there's a tendency for later lenses to be better than earlier ones because the state of the art in general has improved. I know nothing about these two specific zooms, but it wouldn't be surprising if Canon's was better simply because it was made a few years later. And it wouldn't surprise me if in a few years Nikon produce one which is better than Canon's, or say a 15-300mm which is as good. In areas where the technology is developing rapidly which maker is best for what in which price range is just a game of leapfrog. SignatureChris Malcolm [] > It's also the case that quality in wide range zooms is an area where > the technology is developing rapidly, so there's a tendency for later [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > In areas where the technology is developing rapidly which maker is > best for what in which price range is just a game of leapfrog. Agreed in general, but in the case of the 18-200mm VR/IS lens, Canon seem to have been simply late in getting their lens to market. Both lenses are compromises, and Nikon and Canon have made slight different design compromises. Canon's lens is not, if I may paraphrase, "three years better". Looking forward to that 15-300mm VR lens, though. <G> Cheers, David > [] >> It's also the case that quality in wide range zooms is an area [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Looking forward to that 15-300mm VR lens, though. <G> Tamron's 18-270 comes awful close. Signature-- --John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) <snip> > Looking forward to that 15-300mm VR lens, though. <G> > > Cheers, > David Tamron has released their 18-270 VC, is that close enough? See "http://tinyurl.com/tamron-18-270-VC". $590. The review is at "http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/tamron_18-270_3p5-6p3_vc_n15/page4.asp" and it's not as horrible as you might expect. They say the AF is slower than a Canon or Nikon 18-200, but the optics don't seem to be any worse. > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > slower than a Canon or Nikon 18-200, but the optics don't seem to be > any worse. Not close enough - 15mm and 18mm are rather different wide-angles. (and to John as well). David >> <snip> >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Not close enough - 15mm and 18mm are rather different wide-angles. Just stick on a Canon WD-H72, and you'll be at 14.4mm. Remember everything our old P&S friend was saying about adapters. >>> <snip> >>> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Just stick on a Canon WD-H72, and you'll be at 14.4mm. Remember > everything our old P&S friend was saying about adapters. Use /two/ third-party components and compromise my camera even further - I rather think not, old chap! <G> David > [] >> It's also the case that quality in wide range zooms is an area where [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Looking forward to that 15-300mm VR lens, though. <G> It seems we both read the same article and yes it was said Nikon has the advantage in the wide and Canon has the advantage in the long. Nikon also has the advantage in auto focus and Canon in IS. The convenience seems great but the combo of the 16-85 and the 55-200 may provide significant better image quality for about the same money. And at a later time one can upgrade the 55-200 to a 70-300 but I do not know if the image quality will be substantially better. > Cheers, > David [] > The convenience seems great but the combo of the 16-85 and the 55-200 > may provide significant better image quality for about the same > money. And at a later time one can upgrade the 55-200 to a 70-300 > but I do not know if the image quality will be substantially better. My feeling is, that in practical use: 16-85 + 55-200 provides a greater zoom range and slightly better image quality than the 18-200, ignoring correctable distortions. 70-300 provides a different zoom range to the 55-200, with marginally better image quality, ignoring correctable distortions. but I haven't measured these lenses. If wide is important to you, go for the 16-85mm lens. It has a good reputation. If telephoto is important, why bother with the 55-200 at all, just go straight for the 70-300 or save up? If you must have a wide range now, or the convenience of the single lens matters, get the 18-200mm. (All lenses VR). David >Nikon's low-end lenses are pretty bad in terms of chromatic aberration >and focusing, similar to what Canon used to bundle with their very low [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >switch to Canon because I'm doing sports photography and Nikon lacks the >lenses I need." Utter nonsense. SignatureBest regards, John Panasonic DMC-FZ8, DMC-FZ20, and several others >>Nikon's low-end lenses are pretty bad in terms of chromatic aberration >>and focusing, similar to what Canon used to bundle with their very low [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > >Utter nonsense. For once I can say I agree with John. Although I wouldn't consider it to be utter nonsense, but the above isn't completely factual. When the D3 and D700 came out, lots of pros switched back to Nikon. It's true that Nikon dragged their feet for too many years over things like full frame and other innovations; but now that they've woken up they are once again the game to beat. This is just one data point, but I've heard similar comments: About a year ago, I personally asked one pro why he chose his D2 over the Canon 1D. His answer, without hesitating, was, "I want a camera that I know will still work if I drop it." > Basically, I like the Nikon D90 better than the Canon Digital Rebel Xsi. > For me it just feels and handles better and there are more buttons for [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > that the majority of Nikon lenses are more costly than Canon. I do not > know what you are getting for the additional money. Maybe there is a difference in their service too. My husband got a 50D and a really good lens for Christmas, however we have never gotten it to focus clearly, so he called Canon. They said to send them some photos, so he did. Canon said the it was a lens problem and to send the lens in. I was pretty impressed. Yesterday he got a letter saying his lens would be shipped within 7 days, then went on to say that they may give him a new lens, or a refurbished lens, or fix his lens with refurbished parts or send him a different model. So he buys a new lens and may get a refurbished lens, or even a different lens. This is really disappointing and he will be calling Canon tomorrow. SignatureSheila http://swdalton.com >> Basically, I like the Nikon D90 better than the Canon Digital Rebel >> Xsi. For me it just feels and handles better and there are more [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > different lens. This is really disappointing and he will be calling > Canon tomorrow. What difference does it make if the lens is working properly, has no cosmetic defects, and has a full warranty? Signature-- --John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) >>> Basically, I like the Nikon D90 better than the Canon Digital Rebel >>> Xsi. For me it just feels and handles better and there are more [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > What difference does it make if the lens is working properly, has no > cosmetic defects, and has a full warranty? If we wanted a refurbished lens, we would have bought one. Refurbished stuff goes for less money than new. Also I would expect a refurbished anything to breakdown sooner that a new one. Also if he wanted a different lens than the model he bought, he would have gotten that one, He bought what is rated as a very good lens and we do not want that switched out for a lessor rated lens even if it does have the same 'features'. SignatureSheila http://swdalton.com >>>> Basically, I like the Nikon D90 better than the Canon Digital >>>> Rebel [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > does > have the same 'features'. Uh, once it has been back to Canon and they have worked on it is a "refurbished" lens even if it is the same one that he bought. Signature-- --John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) >>>>> Basically, I like the Nikon D90 better than the Canon Digital >>>>> Rebel [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > Uh, once it has been back to Canon and they have worked on it is a > "refurbished" lens even if it is the same one that he bought. I understand that. If we had bought this camera from a different dealer, they would have just have taken the lens back and sent a replacement. My last purchase of a D300 and lens was sent with a faulty lens, and it was replaced by the dealer, no questions asked. I would have certainly have expected the same thing from the manufacturer. SignatureSheila http://swdalton.com >>>>>> Basically, I like the Nikon D90 better than the Canon Digital >>>>>> Rebel [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] > I would have certainly have expected the same thing from the > manufacturer. Then you need to take it up with customer service, not repair. The repair department's function is to refurbish things. Signature-- --John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) >>>>>> Basically, I like the Nikon D90 better than the Canon Digital >>>>>> Rebel [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > lens, and it was replaced by the dealer, no questions asked. I would > have certainly have expected the same thing from the manufacturer. If you have a D300 why did you get a Canon 50D? >>>>>>> Basically, I like the Nikon D90 better than the Canon Digital >>>>>>> Rebel [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > > If you have a D300 why did you get a Canon 50D? My husband wanted an equivalent camera and he didn't want to duplicate the D300 so he went for the 50D. We shoot at the same time, so it is hard to share a camera. SignatureSheila http://swdalton.com > > If you have a D300 why did you get a Canon 50D? > > My husband wanted an equivalent camera and he didn't want to duplicate > the D300 so he went for the 50D. We shoot at the same time, so it is > hard to share a camera. so get a d90 or d700. it's easier to have the same brand in the family so you can share lenses. if he gets canon, you'll have to buy duplicate lenses and carry them too. >>> If you have a D300 why did you get a Canon 50D? >> My husband wanted an equivalent camera and he didn't want to duplicate [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > so you can share lenses. if he gets canon, you'll have to buy > duplicate lenses and carry them too. Don't you worry your little head about what I do? SignatureSheila http://swdalton.com >>>>>>>> Basically, I like the Nikon D90 better than the Canon Digital >>>>>>>> Rebel [quoted text clipped - 79 lines] > is > hard to share a camera. That's, well, crazy. You can't use his lenses, flash, remote release, or just about any other accessory and he can't use yours, every single piece of kit you're going to have to duplicate. Why would anyone want to have to do that? Signature-- --John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) >>>>>>>>> Basically, I like the Nikon D90 better than the Canon Digital >>>>>>>>> Rebel [quoted text clipped - 84 lines] > piece of kit you're going to have to duplicate. Why would anyone want > to have to do that? Stops any arguing about who's using what and when and who has priority, I bet they did this after the problems they had on arguing who'll wear the frilly panties or the boxers ;-) >>>>>>>> Basically, I like the Nikon D90 better than the Canon Digital >>>>>>>> Rebel [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > the D300 so he went for the 50D. We shoot at the same time, so it is > hard to share a camera. I would say that a D90 would have done the job just fine unless you need that extra ruggedness. The image quality is about the same according to all tests. > I would say that a D90 would have done the job just fine unless you need > that extra ruggedness. The image quality is about the same according to > all tests. Perhaps so, but he wanted the Cannon 50D. SignatureSheila http://swdalton.com >>>>> Basically, I like the Nikon D90 better than the Canon Digital >>>>> Rebel [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > > -- Maybe and maybe not. It is possible that all it needed was a small adjustment or as contact that needed to be cleaned. But I know that you do not know and should get a new lens. That said however if it proves there is an design defect in the lens and it occurs in quite a few lenses then you should have a choice of a different lens or you should be allowed to get a refund of both the Camera and lens. Then you could go out and get a Nikon D90 for less money or if you need the extra ruggedness a D300. > If we wanted a refurbished lens, we would have bought one. Refurbished > stuff goes for less money than new. your lens is no longer new. you would get back a repaired lens which is basically refurbished. > Also I would expect a refurbished > anything to breakdown sooner that a new one. why? refurbished is often more reliable because someone checked it out and made sure it was working properly, whereas with new products they check every 100th off the line or whatever. > Also if he wanted a > different lens than the model he bought, he would have gotten that one, > He bought what is rated as a very good lens and we do not want that > switched out for a lessor rated lens even if it does have the same > 'features'. what if they send you a *better* lens than what you sent in? still opposed? and i rather doubt they'll send back a different lens anyway. >> If we wanted a refurbished lens, we would have bought one. >> Refurbished stuff goes for less money than new. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > out and made sure it was working properly, whereas with new products > they check every 100th off the line or whatever. In any case, photographic lenses are not in general short-lived disposable items. A good quality lens, if well cared for, can outlive its original purchaser. >> Also if he wanted a >> different lens than the model he bought, he would have gotten that [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > opposed? and i rather doubt they'll send back a different lens > anyway. Signature-- --John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) >>> If we wanted a refurbished lens, we would have bought one. >>> Refurbished stuff goes for less money than new. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > disposable items. A good quality lens, if well cared for, can outlive > its original purchaser. I agree, so if they have sent me a refurbished lens, the lens has most likely been damaged by the prior owner. We want this lens to last and not break down. It was not an inexpensibe lens. SignatureSheila http://swdalton.com > > In any case, photographic lenses are not in general short-lived > > disposable items. A good quality lens, if well cared for, can outlive [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > likely been damaged by the prior owner. We want this lens to last and > not break down. It was not an inexpensibe lens. if it was refurbished, the damage would have been *fixed*. plus, a refurbished product may not have been damaged at all. if someone buys something and returns it because they didn't like it, it can no longer be sold as new, even if it's in perfect shape. >>> In any case, photographic lenses are not in general short-lived >>> disposable items. A good quality lens, if well cared for, can outlive [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > someone buys something and returns it because they didn't like it, it > can no longer be sold as new, even if it's in perfect shape. I think that many places sell things that have been returned as new. Why does the fact that I don't want a refurbished lens bother you? SignatureSheila http://swdalton.com > > plus, a refurbished product may not have been damaged at all. if > > someone buys something and returns it because they didn't like it, it > > can no longer be sold as new, even if it's in perfect shape. > > I think that many places sell things that have been returned as new. it's illegal to sell returned merchandise as new, but they can resell it as a discounted return. of course, some stores will reshrhinkwrap returned merchandise and sell it as new, but a reputable store will not. > Why does the fact that I don't want a refurbished lens bother you? you seem to have this misconception that refurbished somehow means defective or inferior. refurbished can actually be *better* than new because it was individually checked out and adjusted to be within spec. just because something is new doesn't mean it's going to work, as you've found out. >>> plus, a refurbished product may not have been damaged at all. if >>> someone buys something and returns it because they didn't like it, it [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > just because something is new doesn't mean it's going to work, as > you've found out. Why does the fact that I don't want a refurbished lens bother you? SignatureSheila http://swdalton.com > Why does the fact that I don't want a refurbished lens bother you? it doesn't bother me at all. i don't really care what you do. but you don't seem to understand how warranties work if the lens is within the return period (usually a week or two), you can return it and get a brand new replacement, essentially return it & buy another new one. if it is *past* that point, you are *not* entitled to a new replacement. you are only entitled to a repaired or replacement lens, at the discretion of the manufacturer, which is basically what a refurbished lens is. why is this so hard to understand? >> Why does the fact that I don't want a refurbished lens bother you? > > it doesn't bother me at all. Then why don't you drop it? i don't really care what you do. but you > don't seem to understand how warranties work > > if the lens is within the return period (usually a week or two), you > can return it and get a brand new replacement, essentially return it & > buy another new one. We have only had this a short time and it has never worked. > if it is *past* that point, you are *not* entitled to a new > replacement. you are only entitled to a repaired or replacement lens, > at the discretion of the manufacturer, which is basically what a > refurbished lens is. Where is you source for this time limit? You must have references! > why is this so hard to understand? SignatureSheila http://swdalton.com >> Why does the fact that I don't want a refurbished lens bother you? > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > at the discretion of the manufacturer, which is basically what a > refurbished lens is. It's usually 30 days. > why is this so hard to understand? SignatureSheila http://swdalton.com >> > plus, a refurbished product may not have been damaged at all. if >> > someone buys something and returns it because they didn't like it, it [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > returned merchandise and sell it as new, but a reputable store will > not. It is illegal to sell crap ink for a printer and claim it is compatible but the fly by nites do it all of the time. >> Why does the fact that I don't want a refurbished lens bother you? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > just because something is new doesn't mean it's going to work, as > you've found out. > It is illegal to sell crap ink for a printer and claim it is compatible > but the fly by nites do it all of the time. it's not illegal to sell crap. it's illegal to lie about it though. it's also illegal to claim returned merchandise is new. some stores do that, but only sleazy ones. >>>> In any case, photographic lenses are not in general short-lived >>>> disposable items. A good quality lens, if well cared for, can [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Why does the fact that I don't want a refurbished lens bother you? What bothers me is that you're having a tantrum at Canon and suggesting that Nikon's policies are different. Signature-- --John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) >>>>> In any case, photographic lenses are not in general short-lived >>>>> disposable items. A good quality lens, if well cared for, can [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > -- Nikons policies are probably the same. But if you make known your demand the company will most likely make good and honor your request. You do not have to convince anybody including those in this ng why you want what you paid of. The fact that you paid for the purchase is all that needs to be known. >>>>>> In any case, photographic lenses are not in general short-lived >>>>>> disposable items. A good quality lens, if well cared for, can [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > paid of. The fact that you paid for the purchase is all that needs to be > known. Thanks. SignatureSheila http://swdalton.com >>>>> In any case, photographic lenses are not in general short-lived >>>>> disposable items. A good quality lens, if well cared for, can [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > What bothers me is that you're having a tantrum at Canon and > suggesting that Nikon's policies are different. I'm not having a tantrum, I just reported what went on with Canon and am not satisfied. You seems to me that the 2 of you have just gone off for no apparent reason. I've had repairs made with Nikon when I slipped and fell on my camera and lens and jammed the lens. Of course, I had to pay for that repair, but I was very satisfied with their service. SignatureSheila http://swdalton.com > I've had repairs made with Nikon when I slipped and fell on my camera > and lens and jammed the lens. Of course, I had to pay for that repair, > but I was very satisfied with their service. so sell the canon and go back to nikon. >> I've had repairs made with Nikon when I slipped and fell on my camera >> and lens and jammed the lens. Of course, I had to pay for that repair, >> but I was very satisfied with their service. > > so sell the canon and go back to nikon. Why don't you just mind your own business, I'll take care of mine. SignatureSheila http://swdalton.com >>> I've had repairs made with Nikon when I slipped and fell on my camera >>> and lens and jammed the lens. Of course, I had to pay for that repair, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Why don't you just mind your own business, I'll take care of mine. Does it not occur to you that you brought your business to this newsgroup and made it everyone's business? SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >>>> I've had repairs made with Nikon when I slipped and fell on my camera >>>> and lens and jammed the lens. Of course, I had to pay for that repair, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Does it not occur to you that you brought your business to this > newsgroup and made it everyone's business? Well, I was just commenting on an experience that I had with canon. SignatureSheila http://swdalton.com >>>>> I've had repairs made with Nikon when I slipped and fell on my camera >>>>> and lens and jammed the lens. Of course, I had to pay for that repair, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Well, I was just commenting on an experience that I had with canon. The next time you have a problem and want to discuss it in a newsgroup, I suggest that you: 1) State the problem in complete detail, and 2) add a list of comments about the problem that you feel will be acceptable responses to your problem, and 3) make it clear that you do not want anyone to post comments that are not on your list and explicitly in agreement with your acceptable responses. This will save a great deal of time and aggravation on everyone's part. No one will be required to prepare responses - albeit reasonable and practical responses - that you will not meet with favor. In the meantime, I'll provide the response that you seem to seeking: Sheila, you are absolutely correct, there is no possible way that this problem can be solved other than by doing exactly what you want, and anyone who disagrees with this is absolutely wrong and should be flogged for even considering to offer a solution that is not exactly what you want to hear. You are at fault only for not telling us in advance what you want to hear. And we forgive you for that. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >>>>>> I've had repairs made with Nikon when I slipped and fell on my camera >>>>>> and lens and jammed the lens. Of course, I had to pay for that repair, [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > Oh, you are so sweet. SignatureSheila http://swdalton.com >>>> If we wanted a refurbished lens, we would have bought one. >>>> Refurbished stuff goes for less money than new. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > and > not break down. It was not an inexpensibe lens. What makes you think that a lens repaired under warranty was "damaged"? More likely to be a manufacturing defect. Signature-- --John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) >>>>> If we wanted a refurbished lens, we would have bought one. >>>>> Refurbished stuff goes for less money than new. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > What makes you think that a lens repaired under warranty was > "damaged"? More likely to be a manufacturing defect. Could be! SignatureSheila http://swdalton.com >> If we wanted a refurbished lens, we would have bought one. Refurbished >> stuff goes for less money than new. > > your lens is no longer new. you would get back a repaired lens which > is basically refurbished. It was new and we never were able to get it to work properly, shouldn't they replace it with a new lens. We didn't buy a used lens. I don't have a problem if they just fix the lens, but I don't want old parts that have already failed in virtually a new lens, that we paid new not refurbished prices for. >> Also I would expect a refurbished >> anything to breakdown sooner that a new one. > > why? refurbished is often more reliable because someone checked it out > and made sure it was working properly, whereas with new products they > check every 100th off the line or whatever. Possible, but why not replace new with new? >> Also if he wanted a >> different lens than the model he bought, he would have gotten that one, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > what if they send you a *better* lens than what you sent in? still > opposed? In that range, there is no better lens that I know of so I don't see how they could send a better lens. and i rather doubt they'll send back a different lens anyway. Well, we'll see what they say tomorrow. SignatureSheila http://swdalton.com > I don't > have a problem if they just fix the lens, but I don't want old parts > that have already failed in virtually a new lens, that we paid new not > refurbished prices for. how do you know they haven't replaced the parts that failed? > >> Also I would expect a refurbished > >> anything to breakdown sooner that a new one. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Possible, but why not replace new with new? and if it breaks 6 months later, you think you'll get a new lens then too? > >> Also if he wanted a > >> different lens than the model he bought, he would have gotten that one, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > In that range, there is no better lens that I know of so I don't see how > they could send a better lens. what lens was it? >> I don't >> have a problem if they just fix the lens, but I don't want old parts >> that have already failed in virtually a new lens, that we paid new not >> refurbished prices for. > > how do you know they haven't replaced the parts that failed? I would expect them to replace that parts that failed, rather never worked in the first place with this lens. >>>> Also I would expect a refurbished >>>> anything to breakdown sooner that a new one. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > and if it breaks 6 months later, you think you'll get a new lens then > too? It didn't break, it never worked in the first place. I would think if it starts malfunctioning within the warranty period with abuse that they would fix or replace it. Yes, why does this bother you anyway. >>>> Also if he wanted a >>>> different lens than the model he bought, he would have gotten that one, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > what lens was it? SignatureSheila http://swdalton.com > >> I don't > >> have a problem if they just fix the lens, but I don't want old parts [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I would expect them to replace that parts that failed, rather never > worked in the first place with this lens. and how is that different from a new lens that has all working parts? you bought a lens, it didn't work, they replace the broken parts with new parts, so you now have an individually adjusted lens with all new parts. > I would think if it starts malfunctioning within the warranty period > with abuse that they would fix or replace it. Yes, why does this > bother you anyway. and that's exactly what they're doing. they're fixing it or replacing it. so what exactly is the big deal? >>>> I don't >>>> have a problem if they just fix the lens, but I don't want old parts [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > new parts, so you now have an individually adjusted lens with all new > parts. That is exactly what I want. >> I would think if it starts malfunctioning within the warranty period >> with abuse that they would fix or replace it. Yes, why does this >> bother you anyway. > > and that's exactly what they're doing. they're fixing it or replacing > it. so what exactly is the big deal? No big deal if the fix it or replace it with a new lens. Why does this bother you so much? SignatureSheila http://swdalton.com > > you bought a lens, it didn't work, they replace the broken parts with > > new parts, so you now have an individually adjusted lens with all new > > parts. > > That is exactly what I want. also known as a refurbished lens. you finally understand. >>> you bought a lens, it didn't work, they replace the broken parts with >>> new parts, so you now have an individually adjusted lens with all new >>> parts. >> That is exactly what I want. > > also known as a refurbished lens. you finally understand. No, we still don't agree. Why does this bother you so much? Do you work for Canon? You just keep snipping my question out. SignatureSheila http://swdalton.com >>>> you bought a lens, it didn't work, they replace the broken parts with >>>> new parts, so you now have an individually adjusted lens with all new [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Why does this bother you so much? Do you work for Canon? You just keep > snipping my question out. A lot of things may bother him. >>> you bought a lens, it didn't work, they replace the broken parts with >>> new parts, so you now have an individually adjusted lens with all new >>> parts. >> That is exactly what I want. > > also known as a refurbished lens. you finally understand. Not exactly. There is the "age" of the lens to consider. That is, how long was it off the shelf befor it got sent back. Say Canon had a problem with a chip used in the lenses, which effected serial numbers 12655 through 12675. Hers was 12670. Would she object if they replaced 12670 with a refurbished (repaired) 12667, which came back the day before hers did? Say both were dead out of the box, and were in the hands of buyers for only two days. Now if they tried sending her a refurbished 8130, assuming these were actual n8umbers of lenses produced, she has a point, a big point. Doug McDonald > Say Canon had a problem with a chip used in the lenses, which > effected serial numbers 12655 through 12675. Hers was 12670. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Now if they tried sending her a refurbished 8130, assuming these were actual > n8umbers of lenses produced, she has a point, a big point. and what point is that? if a defective chip in a certain range had a problem and was replaced with a functioning chip outside that range and the lens meets spec, there is no issue. >>>>> I don't >>>>> have a problem if they just fix the lens, but I don't want old [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Why does this bother you so much? So you're OK with them sending you a refurbished lens as long as it has the same serial number as the one you sent them, but if they don't send you _that_ refurbished lens then you insist on having a _new_ lens? Signature-- --John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) >>>>>> I don't >>>>>> have a problem if they just fix the lens, but I don't want old [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > send you _that_ refurbished lens then you insist on having a _new_ > lens? You just don't get it so let's end this discussion. SignatureSheila http://swdalton.com >>>>>>> I don't >>>>>>> have a problem if they just fix the lens, but I don't want old [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > You just don't get it so let's end this discussion. Oh, I get it just fine--you're doing that typical female thing where your whining is intended to elicit sympathy rather than solutions and you don't like it that nobody but measekite seems to have any sympathy for you. Hint--T&A don't have any effect on people on the other side of a data link. Signature-- --John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) >>>>>>>> I don't >>>>>>>> have a problem if they just fix the lens, but I don't want old [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] >you don't like it that nobody but measekite seems to have any sympathy >for you. That's a low, unfair, blow. What she's doing is no more typical of females that it is of males. Bill Wells - who is presumably male - is doing the same thing in the movie/DVD thread. He's asking for solutions to a stated problem and has rejected every solution offered without trying any of them. He seems determined not accept any suggestion and natters on and on about why the solutions won't work. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida > T&A don't have any effect on people on the other side of a data > link. it can if photos are posted. :) >> >> I don't >> >> have a problem if they just fix the lens, but I don't want old parts [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > and that's exactly what they're doing. they're fixing it or replacing > it. so what exactly is the big deal? She paid for a new lens. Canon needs to give her what she paid for. When she bought the damn camera and lens from Canon nobody asked her to justify why she bought it and Canon did not really care. Now she needs to get what she paid for and does not have to provide any reason for that demand to Canon or to you. > She paid for a new lens. Canon needs to give her what she paid for. it happened to be defective, and it will get fixed. if it doesn't get fixed, then she has a beef with them. and if it's new enough to be within the return period, just return it, get your money back then go buy another one. > >> She paid for a new lens. Canon needs to give her what she paid for. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > and if it's new enough to be within the return period, just return it, > get your money back then go buy another one. So why are you so upset that I want what I bought? You still haven't answered that question? SignatureSheila http://swdalton.com >>> She paid for a new lens. Canon needs to give her what she paid for. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > So why are you so upset that I want what I bought? You still haven't > answered that question? Sheila, you have my deepest sympathy, because I always like to buy new, preferably NIB (New In Box) and with an unbroken seal. You have every right to get your money's worth, and because Canon is not a crappy brand, but japanese with an excellent reputation. I wouldn't like a new lens that never worked getting repaired and handed back to me, because if I wanted a lens that needed repairement, I'd be off to ebay and get a broken lens, clearly stated so by the buyer, for a couple of bucks. I'd never buy refurbished, FWIW. SignatureTzortzakakis Dimitrios major in electrical engineering mechanized infantry reservist hordad AT otenet DOT gr >>>> She paid for a new lens. Canon needs to give her what she paid for. >>> it happened to be defective, and it will get fixed. if it doesn't get [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > stated so by the buyer, for a couple of bucks. I'd never buy refurbished, > FWIW. Well, luckily they did fix the lens with new parts, however their policy states exactly what I stated in my first post. It is disappointing. SignatureSheila http://swdalton.com >>>>> She paid for a new lens. Canon needs to give her what she paid for. >>>> it happened to be defective, and it will get fixed. if it doesn't get [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Well, luckily they did fix the lens with new parts, however their > policy states exactly what I stated in my first post. It is disappointing. What was wrong with the lens that caused the issue? >>>>>> She paid for a new lens. Canon needs to give her what she paid for. >>>>> it happened to be defective, and it will get fixed. if it doesn't get [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > What was wrong with the lens that caused the issue? The photos were not sharp no matter what was tried. Longer distance landscapes on the same plane had different sharpness across the photo. They did diagnose that the problem was with the lens rather than the camera and said to just send in the lens. They're saying that if the problem is not fixed when we get it that they want us to send in the camera body too. SignatureSheila http://swdalton.com >>>> She paid for a new lens. Canon needs to give her what she paid for. >>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > stated so by the buyer, for a couple of bucks. I'd never buy refurbished, > FWIW. I agree with this. >>> If we wanted a refurbished lens, we would have bought one. Refurbished >>> stuff goes for less money than new. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Possible, but why not replace new with new? Absolutely. And that is what you should demand. I think Canon will follow your wishes but you have to make it known. >>> Also if he wanted a >>> different lens than the model he bought, he would have gotten that [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Well, we'll see what they say tomorrow. >>>> If we wanted a refurbished lens, we would have bought one. Refurbished >>>> stuff goes for less money than new. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Absolutely. And that is what you should demand. I think Canon will > follow your wishes but you have to make it known. Yes, we are going to call Canon tomorrow. >>> Basically, I like the Nikon D90 better than the Canon Digital Rebel >>> Xsi. For me it just feels and handles better and there are more [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > -- If he wanted used he should pay a used price If he wanted refurbished he should pay a refurbished price He chose to pay for a new lens at a new price and that is what he should get so what you are saying is immaterial. > If he wanted used he should pay a used price > If he wanted refurbished he should pay a refurbished price > He chose to pay for a new lens at a new price and that is what he should > get so what you are saying is immaterial. she, not he. and she *got* a new lens. it was defective (it happens) and will be fixed under warranty. sometimes if it's within a week or so of purchase, they'll send out a new one, but that is not required. the *only* requirement is that it be fixed. >> If he wanted used he should pay a used price >> If he wanted refurbished he should pay a refurbished price [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > so of purchase, they'll send out a new one, but that is not required. > the *only* requirement is that it be fixed. Actually it was my husband's Christmas gift. I'll be happy if they fix it and have always said so. What is your problem with this anyhow? You have been upset ever since my first post on this and I really don't understand when you keep harping on this. SignatureSheila http://swdalton.com > I'll be happy if they fix it and have always said so. and that's exactly what they're going to do. if they don't *then* you have a valid complaint. you should not expect a *new* lens. > What is your problem with this anyhow? You have been upset ever since > my first post on this and I really don't understand when you keep > harping on this. my issue is that you seem to think you deserve a brand new lens when all that you are entitled to is a repair. if you bought a car and the next day the muffler fell off, you would expect the manufacturer to give you a brand new car? no, they'll repair yours. >> I'll be happy if they fix it and have always said so. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > my issue is that you seem to think you deserve a brand new lens when > all that you are entitled to is a repair. Who are you to decide what I do and don't deserve? > if you bought a car and the next day the muffler fell off, you would > expect the manufacturer to give you a brand new car? no, they'll > repair yours. SignatureSheila http://swdalton.com > >> I'll be happy if they fix it and have always said so. > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Who are you to decide what I do and don't deserve? *i'm* not deciding what you deserve. the terms of the warranty decides that, and it lists *exactly* what you are entitled to. perhaps you should read it. just about every warranty i've seen basically says the product is repaired or replaced at the manufacturer's discretion and replacement does not necessarily mean 'new.' if your warranty offers a new replacement and you meet the criteria, then go for it. i just find that to be unlikely. >>> I'll be happy if they fix it and have always said so. >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Who are you to decide what I do and don't deserve? If you post on USENET you are going to get opinions. If people thinking that you are being a pain in the butt and who tell you that bothers you you should not be posting on USENET. You're coming across quite frankly as a whiny spoiled brat who needs a good flogging. Signature-- --John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) >>>> Basically, I like the Nikon D90 better than the Canon Digital Rebel >>>> Xsi. For me it just feels and handles better and there are more [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > He chose to pay for a new lens at a new price and that is what he should > get so what you are saying is immaterial. Well said! SignatureSheila http://swdalton.com >>>> Basically, I like the Nikon D90 better than the Canon Digital >>>> Rebel [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > He chose to pay for a new lens at a new price and that is what he > should get so what you are saying is immaterial. So where does one buy used or refurbished with a full Canon new-product warranty? Are you saying that the only acceptable solution for a manufacturing defect is to be provided a brand new replacement product? Signature-- --John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) >>>>> Basically, I like the Nikon D90 better than the Canon Digital >>>>> Rebel [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] >Are you saying that the only acceptable solution for a manufacturing >defect is to be provided a brand new replacement product? Where does the store come in on this? Had I received a new lens for Christmas, and the lens did not work correctly, I would return it to the store for full credit. Let the store work it out with the manufacturer. I buy from reputable stores and always use a credit card. If the store balks on accepting the return, I'd dispute the charge. I can't imagine why I'd have to deal directly with the manufacturer. This hasn't happened to me often with big ticket items, but it did happen with a computer. I returned it for credit and came back later and bought a new one, and made sure it was in a factory-sealed box. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >>>>> Basically, I like the Nikon D90 better than the Canon Digital >>>>> Rebel [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > So where does one buy used or refurbished with a full Canon > new-product warranty? Frys > Are you saying that the only acceptable solution for a manufacturing > defect is to be provided a brand new replacement product? > > -- >>>>>> Basically, I like the Nikon D90 better than the Canon Digital >>>>>> Rebel [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] > > Frys Please provide evidence that it is a full Canon new-product warranty and not a Fry's store warranty. Signature-- --John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) Does no one get that you're being mightily fished by "Sheila"? > Does no one get that you're being mightily fished by "Sheila"? No me how about you >> Does no one get that you're being mightily fished by "Sheila"? > > No me how about you I'm not a troll if that is what John means. SignatureSheila http://swdalton.com >>>>>>> Basically, I like the Nikon D90 better than the Canon Digital >>>>>>> Rebel [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] > > -- If you have enough interest you can check it out at Frys. www.frys.com I do not care to spend my time on something that will not benefit me at the present time. > >>> So where does one buy used or refurbished with a full Canon > >>> new-product warranty? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > If you have enough interest you can check it out at Frys. www.frys.com that says write a letter to frys to find out. what a joke. > I do not care to spend my time on something that will not benefit me at > the present time. because you have no evidence to back it up. > > So where does one buy used or refurbished with a full Canon > > new-product warranty? > > Frys frys is one of the sleaziest places to shop, mainly because they *do* sell returned merchandise as new, even though it's illegal. they're 'supposed' to mark it but they don't. >> > So where does one buy used or refurbished with a full Canon >> > new-product warranty? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > sell returned merchandise as new, even though it's illegal. they're > 'supposed' to mark it but they don't. But they do > >> > So where does one buy used or refurbished with a full Canon > >> > new-product warranty? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > But they do sometimes. not always. it's actually not that unusual that they 'forget'. i know a lot of people that got duped. and a lot of returns are missing parts which the previous owner neglected to include when returning it. good luck trying to convince frys it was missing. |
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
|
©2010 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.