For those that have gone Nikon to Canon

Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 VR DG IF-ED

02/24/2006 04:54:44 PM · #26

I'll beg to differ.

Good glass will always be good glass. It doesn't degrade in quality over time and in fact the only things you miss out on are additonal features like IS/VR, USM, AF, etc. The ability of a lens to resolve detail in a scene also doesn't degrade over time and a good 30 year old lens will easily match a good 3 month old lens.....especially when considering that resolution is limited by the current 6-8 mpixel sensors anyway.

cheers,
bazz.

riot

Canon EOS-1D Mark IV

Helios 40-1 85mm f/1.5

02/24/2006 05:04:35 PM · #27

Originally posted by sir_bazz:

I'll beg to differ.
Good glass will always be good glass.

Indeed that's true, but what's good glass now is considerably better than what good glass was 20 years ago, let alone 50. Manufacturing aspherical elements with greater precision has become far simpler and more cost-effective. Most good lenses use special low dispersion elements now, some Canon L glass even uses fluorite elements the physical manufacture of which would have simply been impossible in the past, regardless of price.

There's a lot more to a good lens than resolution, and modern techniques and experience allow manufacturers to reduce aberrations and distortions while maintaining great colour in ways lens designers would have only dreamt of when Nikon were in their prime.

Gatorguy

Nikon D700

02/24/2006 05:26:43 PM · #28

Nikon tends to have a slower product release cycle, but the release is usually a greater advance. IE D100 to D200 was four years. Canon in the mean time released D60, 10D, 20D, and now 30D in that time - but the improvements were in fairly minor increments. While some applaud all the new product releases by Canon, others were ticked because their model was obsoleted in such a short time.

I use Nikon because I was invested in them. I have friends who shoot the 20D and they do very nice work. I can't fault their Cameras one bit. I don't happen to care for the feel of the 20D, but that's just one person's opinion, and based is solely based on what I've grown accustomed to over the years.

Which company has the most lenses? I don't know but as for me, it doesn't really matter as I can cover 15mm to 500mm with my lens selection that consists of about seven lenses - I don't need any more.

I have a D200 now and shoot ISO1600 occasionally. I find that as long as I expose properly, the noise is well under control. Is Canon better? Maybe, I'm not sure - some say yes, some say no, the noise just has different charateristics. If I had to, I could correct noise issue via software solutions. But the fact is, I don't have a reason to shoot high ISO often because I have invested in fast lenses, so it's not an issue for me. If it is for you, then that is certainly a critera for evaluation. We are growing spoiled with ALL the newer cameras abilities to perform high ISO - If you don't believe me, take a look at ISO800 film sometime ;)

But in the end, both camera manufacturers travel a cyclic highway where one has the advantage in a given class, and then the other. Currently, by most reviewers opinions, Nikon has a slight advantage in the midrange DSLR with the D200. But that doesn't mean a whole lot because N and C are so close that few people would guess correctly if identical images taken with each camera were placed side by side in front of them.

One thing to be careful of when you are doing evaluation is the opinions voiced by owners who are always trying to justify their choices. It really rather silly hearing some of the crud that people spout off about - check the forums at DPReview.com, you'll see what I'm talking about. People regurgitate "facts" without any knowledge other that what they read on some website somewhere, written by someone who may or may not have a clue what they are talking about. There are brand zealots on both sides. They are pretty easy to pick out of a crowd as they are the ones always doing the chest thumping about their particular brand of choice while ripping the competition (and those who use the competing cameras) to pieces.

In the end, either (plus the offerings of Pentax, Oly, etc.) brand will have the ability to outshoot the shooter. Choose what works best for you after you have done all your research including actually handling the potential selections.

Good luck in your quest.

Message edited by author 2006-02-24 19:00:39.

Azrifel

Fujifilm X100VI

02/24/2006 06:01:32 PM · #29

Originally posted by riot:

I was merely pointing out that not changing your lens mount in 50 years leaves you at a disadvantage in other ways, even if it increases the quantitative range of lenses available.

The Nikon F mount is changed all the time. It uses the same sized hole and bajonet mount, but they constantly added stuff like an AF focus motor screw, and more and more contacts to connect with newer lenses. It is not like they stood still for 50 years.

The advantage is that I can mount an old fully manual (metering and focus) Nikon F lens if I wish to do so. The D200 even brings back metering with lenses that couldn't be metered with on previous modern bodies.
The only disadvantage of the F mount at the moment is that is hasn't got room to use Leica and Leica like lenses with and adapter because they reach too far back into the body. Canon EF has space enough for that, hence the interest in several Voightlander, Leica and Zeiss lenses.

Niten

Canon EOS-20D

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

02/24/2006 07:46:34 PM · #30

When Canon changed its lenes why didn't they move the contacts to the top so mosture wouldn't automatically run to them? I like the Canon stuff but they make thier share of mistakes. I get errors on my 20d alot. It doesn't like cold weather at all.

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED

02/24/2006 08:33:42 PM · #31

Originally posted by riot:

Indeed that's true, but what's good glass now is considerably better than what good glass was 20 years ago, let alone 50.

Added a new goal to my 2006 list. :)

"Get a ribbon with a 25yo+ lens"

cheers,
bazz.

hokie

Nikon D2X

02/24/2006 08:36:09 PM · #32

I actually went from buying a Canon to a Nikon. Before the D2x I was all about buying a Canon but the feature set on the D2x was like getting a Canon 1d Mark II and a Canon 1ds all in one.

I don't argue that the advantage in ultimate Hi-Iso noise performance goes to Canon..but not by enough to offset the low light focus of the Nikon. Plus, the noise for Nikon...to me.. is more filmlike versus Digi-Cam like which I prefer. I work at an agency that is also a photo studio and it is run by film photographer specialists and they use Nikon as well.

I shoot a fair amount of low light events and get great performance as long as I get my exposure correct to within a stop or less. Maybe lots of people need to be able to go into Photoshop and push underexpsosed photos up several stops and Canon lets em do that more easily.

The bottom line. I like both systems but you got to make a choice and for me...Nikon was the better fit by a just a bit. Canon 5D, 1d series,Nikon D200 or the Nikon D2x.. I can take any of them and be perfectly happy. :-D

TransparentReality

Nikon D50

Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5D

02/24/2006 08:36:27 PM · #33

Originally posted by sir_bazz:

Originally posted by riot:
Indeed that's true, but what's good glass now is considerably better than what good glass was 20 years ago, let alone 50.

Added a new goal to my 2006 list. :)

"Get a ribbon with a 25yo+ lens"

cheers,
bazz.

Well, I'm using my dad's 50mm f1.8 Series E circa 1979, so that's something I'd like to do. :)

deapee

Kodak V803

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

02/24/2006 08:39:57 PM · #34

I went from Canon to Nikon -- Nikon is better in every way...don't switch.

Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 VR DG IF-ED

02/24/2006 08:49:15 PM · #35

Originally posted by TransparentReality:

Well, I'm using my dad's 50mm f1.8 Series E circa 1979, so that's something I'd like to do. :)

Go for it.....it should be a fun and rewarding challenge.

I'll be making attempts with a Pentax 135mm f2.5 originally released in 1975. Damn fine design and not one ED, aspherical or fluorite element in it. And the barrel isn't white, cream or beige either :)

cheers,
bazz

hare

Nikon D70s

02/24/2006 09:39:08 PM · #36

Well I went for Nikon. The lenses work well for me as I also have F100 film camera and still use it! I also do wildlife and use my 60mm macro (superb lens) and 80-400mm VR to good effect. Also they're black and not white or something. This helps when trying to hide. Really it's all about what works for your situation and weighing up pro's and con's. Both C and N are excellent systems and they can only get better.

riot

Canon EOS-1D Mark IV

Helios 40-1 85mm f/1.5

02/24/2006 11:29:18 PM · #37

Originally posted by hare:

Also they're black and not white or something. This helps when trying to hide. Really it's all about what works for your situation and weighing up pro's and con's.

Of course a big white blob would put off wildlife much more so than a black one, what with so many predators being bright white. And it's not at all likely that the ridiculous noise of the in-camera-body autofocus motors that aren't suited to long lenses would put off wildlife, as opposed to the silent ultrasonic motors in the big whites. Of course it wouldn't be that with the shoddy nikon optics, the distortions are so bad that thermal expansion wouldn't make any difference, so the heat reflectance of a white coating would be clearly surplus to requirements. And of course the licenced two-generation-old ex-canon VR is more than enough to make up for a lack of a decent aperture, which a nikon lens couldn't support because of the excessive chromatic aberration that they refuse to fix with fluorite elements... because they're more brittle than glass, isn't that the party line? Still, black and not white lenses is definitely a good reason to indoctrinate this poor OP into making a fatal trapping mistake in terms of what dying lens system he subscribes to.

Edit: de-drunking my typos

Message edited by author 2006-02-25 06:52:39.

Gatorguy

Nikon D700

02/24/2006 11:44:53 PM · #38

Originally posted by riot:

Originally posted by hare:
Also they're black and not white or something. This helps when trying to hide. Really it's all about what works for your situation and weighing up pro's and con's.

Of course a big black blob would put off wildlife much more so than a white one, what with so many predators being bright white. And it's not at all likely that the ridiculous noise of the in-camera-body autofocus motors that aren't suited to long lenses would put off wildlife, as opposed to the silent ultrasonic motors in the big whites. Of course with the shoddy nikon optics, the distortions are so bad that thermal expansion wouldn't make any difference, so the heat reflectance of a white coating would be clearly surplus to requirements. And of course the lincenced two-generation-old ex-canon VR is more than enough to make up for a lack of a decent aperture, which a nikon lens couldn't support because of the excessive chromatic aberration that they refuse to fix with fluorite elements... because they're more brittle than glass, isn't that the party line? Still, black and not white lenses is definitely a good reason to indoctrinate this poor OP into making a fatal trapping mistake in terms of what dying lens system he subscribes to.

Please refer my post above. Your attitude is what I'm talking about when I mention brand zealots. Please back your statements up with facts and sources. And while you're at it, see if you can put the rhetoric aside and admit that both companies manufacture capable machines.

Message edited by author 2006-02-24 23:47:25.