Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Nikon User to Canon help me I'm slipping...

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
April 21, 2005 4:06:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Hi all,
I have been a Nikon user since my first SLR an N70 (Film), I am a semi pro
photographer. My main body now is the Nikon F100. I am looking to make the
switch to digital. Not being digital is killing my business.

I have some Nikon pro glass, 24 2.8; 50 1.4; 60 2.8 Macro; 85 1.8; 80-200
2.8 S... I am prepared to eat it, as it where, and switch to Canon Digital.
So are there any Nikon users out there that have made the switch to Canon
and are happy for it, and would do it again? Hey, I switched to Mac, and now
could care less about M$.

I can't help but feel that with even the release of the D2X, Nikon is STILL
behind Canon, and the D2X didn't even get off the ground right. What are
your thoughts on this?

Am I going to burn switching to Canon, or am I really better off just riding
it out with Nikon. Going to Digital, Canon or Nikon, will be a major
investment for me. So I'd like thoughts on people who may have switched.

Rich
http://www.favingerphotography.com/
Anonymous
April 21, 2005 4:06:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Richard Favinger, Jr." <richfavinger@comcast.net> writes:
> Hi all,
> I have been a Nikon user since my first SLR an N70 (Film), I am a semi pro
> photographer. My main body now is the Nikon F100. I am looking to make the
> switch to digital. Not being digital is killing my business.
>
> I have some Nikon pro glass, 24 2.8; 50 1.4; 60 2.8 Macro; 85 1.8; 80-200
> 2.8 S... I am prepared to eat it, as it where, and switch to Canon
> Digital.

As a Canon user since I started, with the glass you have, there's no
way I'd advise you to jump over to Canon.

Get thee a 20D and get busy!

Best Regards,
--
Todd H.
http://www.toddh.net/
Anonymous
April 21, 2005 4:06:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Todd H." <t@toddh.net> wrote in message news:844qe0w0qy.fsf@ripco.com...
> "Richard Favinger, Jr." <richfavinger@comcast.net> writes:
>> Hi all,
>> I have been a Nikon user since my first SLR an N70 (Film), I am a semi
>> pro
>> photographer. My main body now is the Nikon F100. I am looking to make
>> the
>> switch to digital. Not being digital is killing my business.
>>
>> I have some Nikon pro glass, 24 2.8; 50 1.4; 60 2.8 Macro; 85 1.8; 80-200
>> 2.8 S... I am prepared to eat it, as it where, and switch to Canon
>> Digital.
>
> As a Canon user since I started, with the glass you have, there's no
> way I'd advise you to jump over to Canon.
>
> Get thee a 20D and get busy!

I have to agree. With all that great glass how much would you lose making
the switch vs. what you would gain?
Related resources
Anonymous
April 21, 2005 6:44:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

t@toddh.net (Todd H.) writes:

> "Richard Favinger, Jr." <richfavinger@comcast.net> writes:
> > Hi all,
> > I have been a Nikon user since my first SLR an N70 (Film), I am a semi pro
> > photographer. My main body now is the Nikon F100. I am looking to make the
> > switch to digital. Not being digital is killing my business.
> >
> > I have some Nikon pro glass, 24 2.8; 50 1.4; 60 2.8 Macro; 85 1.8; 80-200
> > 2.8 S... I am prepared to eat it, as it where, and switch to Canon
> > Digital.
>
> As a Canon user since I started, with the glass you have, there's no
> way I'd advise you to jump over to Canon.
>
> Get thee a 20D and get busy!

Err, I meant D70. Doh!

LOL.

--
Todd H.
http://www.toddh.net/
Anonymous
April 21, 2005 8:21:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Richard Favinger, Jr. <richfavinger@comcast.net> wrote:

> I can't help but feel that with even the release of the D2X, Nikon is STILL
> behind Canon, and the D2X didn't even get off the ground right. What are
> your thoughts on this?

It's hard to find indications that the D2x isn't *better* than the Canon 1ds2
in almost every respect, other than high ISO noise.

UPS says my D2x is out for delivery and arriving sometime today. I'm not
interested in switching; as a personal preference I like Nikon cameras better.
Though I do have more glass than you listed, used Nikon glass commands
excellent prices on eBay, so it wouldn't be *that* much of a loss (I see
lenses regularly sell for only slightly under the new price), but I can't
see any reason to switch -- unless you really do want Canon's high-paced
product release schedule. I'm willing to wait for Nikon, since they tend
to get it right when they finally get around to it.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
Anonymous
April 21, 2005 8:34:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Richard Favinger, Jr." asked:
"...
I can't help but feel that with even the release of the D2X, Nikon is STILL
behind Canon, and the D2X didn't even get off the ground right. What are
your thoughts on this?
...."

First:
Nikon buys it's sensors from (I think) Sony. Sony is a large, diverse
supplier of electronic components, and ... as such ... Nikon will *not*
have a hugh amount of product leverage with them.

Canon has made the investment in the (very expensive) technology and
semiconductor processing equipment, and makes their own sensors. Since they
own the sensor plant, Canon's camera group will have a hugh amount of
product leverage.

IMHO: This is a *big* one ... what it means is Nikon is dependent on Sony
(or some other vendor), while Canon controls their own destiny. The end
result, Canon just seems to be "a generation ahead" of Nikon in the key
component ... the image sensor. This probably will not change in the near
future.

Second:
Canon figured out twenty years ago that their existing manual lens mount
would not be adequate for the coming generation(s) of cameras ... cameras
that include autofocus, image stabilization, and all of the other really
neat things we all now want. They "bit the bullet" and completely
redesigned the lens and lens mounting system to be what they thought they
would need. They suffered "in the marketplace" for a while, but have
introduced cameras and lenses that many consider to be the best ever
available, and now are on a marketing high point because of making the
change twenty years ago.

Nikon is still trying to patch-together a workable modern lens and lens
mounting system. This probably will not change in the near future.

Third:
Nikon is a (relatively) small optics and photographic company. They have
made many excellent to superb products throughout the last fifty years or
so. However, the company's resources and assets are (relatively) limited.

Canon is a hugh conglomerate, and manufacturers many products. By
comparison to Nikon, the company has very substantial resources and assets.
Included in those assets are several "cash cow" product lines that can
internally provide the financing for developing better cameras, sensors,
and lenses.

"Richard Favinger, Jr." then asked:

"...
Am I going to burn switching to Canon, or am I really better off just
riding
it out with Nikon. Going to Digital, Canon or Nikon, will be a major
investment for me.
...."

IMHO: Canon is the better bet ... both short term or long term.

YMMV


"Richard Favinger, Jr." <richfavinger@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:BE8D47DF.12A26%richfavinger@comcast.net...
> Hi all,
> I have been a Nikon user since my first SLR an N70 (Film), I am a semi
pro
> photographer. My main body now is the Nikon F100. I am looking to make
the
> switch to digital. Not being digital is killing my business.
>
> I have some Nikon pro glass, 24 2.8; 50 1.4; 60 2.8 Macro; 85 1.8; 80-200
> 2.8 S... I am prepared to eat it, as it where, and switch to Canon
Digital.
> So are there any Nikon users out there that have made the switch to Canon
> and are happy for it, and would do it again? Hey, I switched to Mac, and
now
> could care less about M$.
>
> I can't help but feel that with even the release of the D2X, Nikon is
STILL
> behind Canon, and the D2X didn't even get off the ground right. What are
> your thoughts on this?
>
> Am I going to burn switching to Canon, or am I really better off just
riding
> it out with Nikon. Going to Digital, Canon or Nikon, will be a major
> investment for me. So I'd like thoughts on people who may have switched.
>
> Rich
> http://www.favingerphotography.com/
>
Anonymous
April 21, 2005 8:45:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Richard Favinger, Jr. <richfavinger@comcast.net> wrote:

> I can't help but feel that with even the release of the D2X, Nikon
> is STILL behind Canon, and the D2X didn't even get off the ground
> right. What are your thoughts on this?

I don't know why you believe that "the D2X didn't even get off the
ground right." It's a superb piece of machinery. It's been very well
reviewed. What's not to like? Are you worried about 12 vs 16 Mpix,
sensor size, or what?

> Am I going to burn switching to Canon, or am I really better off
> just riding it out with Nikon. Going to Digital, Canon or Nikon,
> will be a major investment for me. So I'd like thoughts on people
> who may have switched.

Why would you want to switch? I don't get it.

Andrew.
Anonymous
April 21, 2005 9:30:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <BE8D47DF.12A26%richfavinger@comcast.net>,
richfavinger@comcast.net says...
> Hi all,
> I have been a Nikon user since my first SLR an N70 (Film), I am a semi pro
> photographer. My main body now is the Nikon F100. I am looking to make the
> switch to digital. Not being digital is killing my business.
>
> I have some Nikon pro glass, 24 2.8; 50 1.4; 60 2.8 Macro; 85 1.8; 80-200
> 2.8 S... I am prepared to eat it, as it where, and switch to Canon Digital.
> So are there any Nikon users out there that have made the switch to Canon
> and are happy for it, and would do it again? Hey, I switched to Mac, and now
> could care less about M$.
>
> I can't help but feel that with even the release of the D2X, Nikon is STILL
> behind Canon, and the D2X didn't even get off the ground right. What are
> your thoughts on this?
>
> Am I going to burn switching to Canon, or am I really better off just riding
> it out with Nikon. Going to Digital, Canon or Nikon, will be a major
> investment for me. So I'd like thoughts on people who may have switched.
>
> Rich
> http://www.favingerphotography.com/
>
>
For all the advocacy for/against each brand, they are both excellent
cameras and the differences tend to be fairly minor, unless there's
a specific feature you want that only one of them provides--which is
unlikely.

You have a lot of good glass. Why switch? Specifically, what is
it that Nikon's products don't give you?

Diane
Anonymous
April 21, 2005 9:48:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On 21 Apr 2005 14:44:49 -0500, t@toddh.net (Todd H.) wrote:

>t@toddh.net (Todd H.) writes:
>
>> "Richard Favinger, Jr." <richfavinger@comcast.net> writes:
>> > Hi all,
>> > I have been a Nikon user since my first SLR an N70 (Film), I am a semi pro
>> > photographer. My main body now is the Nikon F100. I am looking to make the
>> > switch to digital. Not being digital is killing my business.
>> >
>> > I have some Nikon pro glass, 24 2.8; 50 1.4; 60 2.8 Macro; 85 1.8; 80-200
>> > 2.8 S... I am prepared to eat it, as it where, and switch to Canon
>> > Digital.
>>
>> As a Canon user since I started, with the glass you have, there's no
>> way I'd advise you to jump over to Canon.
>>
>> Get thee a 20D and get busy!
>
>Err, I meant D70. Doh!
>
>LOL.

Oh, Freud....
-Rich
April 21, 2005 11:46:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"RSD99" <rsdwla.NOSPAM@gte.net> wrote in message
news:JCQ9e.24811$H_5.2521@trnddc01...
> "Richard Favinger, Jr." asked:
> "...
> I can't help but feel that with even the release of the D2X, Nikon is
STILL
> behind Canon, and the D2X didn't even get off the ground right. What are
> your thoughts on this?
> ..."
>
> First:
> Nikon buys it's sensors from (I think) Sony. Sony is a large, diverse
> supplier of electronic components, and ... as such ... Nikon will *not*
> have a hugh amount of product leverage with them.
>

Of course Sony wants to be a big player in the digital camera arena and
supplies more than just Nikon, Konica/Minolta, Pentax and themselves...I
think they (Sony) already have any necessary incentive.

> Canon has made the investment in the (very expensive) technology and
> semiconductor processing equipment, and makes their own sensors. Since
they
> own the sensor plant, Canon's camera group will have a hugh amount of
> product leverage.
>

This one has always puzzled me. Nikon MANUFACTURES semiconductor processing
equipment (is that whose stuff Canon bought <wink>), yet they don't get into
the manufacture of the sensors. Heck, 80% of the world's "semiconductor
manufacturers" don't have their own foundries...they sub-contract that out.
Yet, Nikon seems content to watch from the sidelines...

> IMHO: This is a *big* one ... what it means is Nikon is dependent on Sony
> (or some other vendor), while Canon controls their own destiny. The end
> result, Canon just seems to be "a generation ahead" of Nikon in the key
> component ... the image sensor. This probably will not change in the near
> future.
>

This could be a big downside too. It means that the cost of the equipment
has to be paid for by the sales of one company's digital camera sensor sales
and you DO know that semiconductor manufacturing equipment becomes obsolete
every 18-24 months, don't you? So, what is an asset today is a millstone in
two years.

> Second:
> Canon figured out twenty years ago that their existing manual lens mount
> would not be adequate for the coming generation(s) of cameras ... cameras
> that include autofocus, image stabilization, and all of the other really
> neat things we all now want. They "bit the bullet" and completely
> redesigned the lens and lens mounting system to be what they thought they
> would need. They suffered "in the marketplace" for a while, but have
> introduced cameras and lenses that many consider to be the best ever
> available, and now are on a marketing high point because of making the
> change twenty years ago.
>
> Nikon is still trying to patch-together a workable modern lens and lens
> mounting system. This probably will not change in the near future.
>

Nikon's lens mount is working just fine and I use all my Nikon lenses (even
back to 1973) on my D70. Canon users got screwed with the EF/FD change and
then again on the FD/EOS change. Also, all the various sized sensors in the
various dslr's doesn't make it too easy to put together a coherent selection
of
lenses. On the plus side for Canon, they DO have a much better selection of
long telephoto lenses, a few faster lenses, and more image stabilized
lenses. However, Nikon has a better selection of wide angle lenses, a DX
fisheye, and the software to make their DX fisheye rectilinear when desired.

> Third:
> Nikon is a (relatively) small optics and photographic company. They have
> made many excellent to superb products throughout the last fifty years or
> so. However, the company's resources and assets are (relatively) limited.
>

And manufacturer of semiconductor manufacturing equipment such as wafer
steppers. Also (I'm asking), isn't Nikon one of the three largest optical
glass companies in the world? I think I recall reading that somewhere.

> Canon is a hugh conglomerate, and manufacturers many products. By
> comparison to Nikon, the company has very substantial resources and
assets.
> Included in those assets are several "cash cow" product lines that can
> internally provide the financing for developing better cameras, sensors,
> and lenses.
>

Canon is into several areas (copiers, printers, cameras) that come
immediately to mind. Others? One possible problem, aren't all the products
that Canon makes in the "commodity" category, i.e., they have severely
eroded profit margins (unlike industrial equipment)?
Anonymous
April 22, 2005 4:23:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

George wrote:

>>First:
>>Nikon buys it's sensors from (I think) Sony. Sony is a large, diverse
>>supplier of electronic components, and ... as such ... Nikon will *not*
>>have a hugh amount of product leverage with them.
>>
>
>
> Of course Sony wants to be a big player in the digital camera arena and
> supplies more than just Nikon, Konica/Minolta, Pentax and themselves...I
> think they (Sony) already have any necessary incentive.
>

But not yet the skill to make a truly affordable full frame sensor. or
we would have seen it by now.



>
> This one has always puzzled me. Nikon MANUFACTURES semiconductor processing
> equipment (is that whose stuff Canon bought <wink>), yet they don't get into
> the manufacture of the sensors. Heck, 80% of the world's "semiconductor
> manufacturers" don't have their own foundries...they sub-contract that out.
> Yet, Nikon seems content to watch from the sidelines...

There a big difference between making semi-conductor "machine tools"
(laser etching, wafer slicers, etc) and designing & making chips.
Entirely different expertise.

Canon can afford to design and manufacture is own chips because it can
use that expertise to across several other industries - copiers, video
cameras, printers, etc.


>
> This could be a big downside too. It means that the cost of the equipment
> has to be paid for by the sales of one company's digital camera sensor sales
> and you DO know that semiconductor manufacturing equipment becomes obsolete
> every 18-24 months, don't you? So, what is an asset today is a millstone in
> two years.

Designs become obsolete, but these days the technology gets pushed down
to cheaper chips. So the machinery what was used to make cutting edge PC
CPU's five years ago is now used to make cell phone brains. Nothing ever
really "dies" it just gets resold...

And light sensors don't appear to be as complex or as densely packed as
CPU's, so I suspect issues involved in making higher res sensors are not
directly tied to fitting more circuits on a chip or more chips on a
wafer. IMO improvements in micro lens design, sensor patterns, light
sensitivity, noise, heat dissipation, and quality control are having a
bigger impact on driving down large sensor cost than simple circuit on
silicon advances.



>
> And manufacturer of semiconductor manufacturing equipment such as wafer
> steppers. Also (I'm asking), isn't Nikon one of the three largest optical
> glass companies in the world? I think I recall reading that somewhere.
>

Yeah, but Zeiss, by comparison, is a *massive* optical company, and
still doesn't have the resources to compete in the camera market without
help. That Nikon does is remarkable,


>>Canon is a hugh conglomerate, and manufacturers many products. By
>>comparison to Nikon, the company has very substantial resources and assets.
>
>>Included in those assets are several "cash cow" product lines that can
>>internally provide the financing for developing better cameras, sensors,
>>and lenses.
>>
>
> Canon is into several areas (copiers, printers, cameras) that come
> immediately to mind. Others? One possible problem, aren't all the products
> that Canon makes in the "commodity" category, i.e., they have severely
> eroded profit margins (unlike industrial equipment)?
>

Not really. Canon is fairly diversified company that competes well in a
large number of imaging markets (optics, office copiers, commercial &
pro printers, video lenses and cameras). They also get tremendous
residual income from maintenance contracts and leases worldwide.

That gives them the ability to occasionally take the long view, and
underwrite developing their own CMOS chip at time when conventional
wisdom said buy CCD from a 3rd party. It worked, but if it had failed,
they could have still bought the Sony chips like everyone else.



--

J

www.urbanvoyeur.com
April 22, 2005 11:20:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Diane Wilson" <diane@firelily.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1cd1ad58458fef12989ac3@news-server...
>
> You have a lot of good glass. Why switch? Specifically, what is
> it that Nikon's products don't give you?
>
> Diane
------------------
Nikon cameras - actually Sony Sensors have very poor low light or high ISO
noise suppression. These sensors are also quite prone to producing moiré
patterns when shooting diagonal lines like on roofs.

Canon sensors can demonstrably operate at higher ISO or in poorer light and
not produce the same noise levels as a Sony sensor. Otherwise your argument
that Nikon are good cameras is entirely correct right up to the point of
digital image collection instead of film image.

Somewhere past the point Nikon decided not to get involved in sensor
development, Nikon lost the plot and now rely on sensor development by Sony
who seem to be more intent on developing the next generation television
cameras than sensors for digital still cameras.

Working professional photographers cannot afford to compromise on these
factors *IF* their business relies on absolute quality images. Some don't so
for them, changing to Canon may have no benefit but a wedding photographer
trying to avoid flash inside a church, late in the afternoon would be at a
distinct disadvantage with a Nikon DSLR camera compared to someone with a
Canon 20D for example *IF* the final photos were to be enlarged and what
would be the purpose of paying a photographer if you didn't want
enlargements?

The OP hasn't asked for advise specific to his line of photography, just for
input as to why other have changed. Presumably he has decided to weigh up
replies and make his own decision. This is good. Just having "good glass" is
not in itself any valid reason for being brand loyal when the brand has done
a disservice to their supporters by deciding NOT to develop world class
Digital cameras and instead, opted to "badge engineer" a substitute which is
rapidly going backwards to the opposition.

Douglas
Anonymous
April 22, 2005 2:09:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Douglas <decipleofeos@hotmail.com> wrote:

> "Diane Wilson" <diane@firelily.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1cd1ad58458fef12989ac3@news-server...
>>
>> You have a lot of good glass. Why switch? Specifically, what is
>> it that Nikon's products don't give you?
>>
>> Diane
> ------------------
> Nikon cameras - actually Sony Sensors have very poor low light or high ISO
> noise suppression. These sensors are also quite prone to producing moiré
> patterns when shooting diagonal lines like on roofs.

No, that's not true. The high ISO noise suppression performs fine,
and there is little moire on cameras other than the low-end D70. But
that seems to be a feature of low-end cameras in general: low-pass
filtering is reduced to increase sharpness.

> Canon sensors can demonstrably operate at higher ISO or in poorer
> light and not produce the same noise levels as a Sony
> sensor. Otherwise your argument that Nikon are good cameras is
> entirely correct right up to the point of digital image collection
> instead of film image.

Well, demonstrably or not, the reviews I've seem haven't noticed this
"fact".

Let's be clear about this: the only disadvantage of the D2x is its
high sensor pitch. The design decision beings with it good and bad
features, and which of those dominates depends on what the user wants
to do with the camera.

> Somewhere past the point Nikon decided not to get involved in sensor
> development, Nikon lost the plot and now rely on sensor development
> by Sony who seem to be more intent on developing the next generation
> television cameras than sensors for digital still cameras.

Well, hold on now. Sony fab the Sensors for Nikon. That doesn't mean
anything other than, well, they own the fab. It doesn't say anything
about development, other than that it's not purely done by Nikon
themselves. But this isn't a factor in the decision about what camera
to buy.

> Working professional photographers cannot afford to compromise on
> these factors *IF* their business relies on absolute quality
> images. Some don't so for them, changing to Canon may have no
> benefit but a wedding photographer trying to avoid flash inside a
> church, late in the afternoon would be at a distinct disadvantage
> with a Nikon DSLR camera compared to someone with a Canon 20D for
> example *IF* the final photos were to be enlarged and what would be
> the purpose of paying a photographer if you didn't want
> enlargements?

Hold on. You are telling us that a Canon 20D, a low-end prosumer job,
is better than all Nikon cameras. And you expect us to believe that.

> The OP hasn't asked for advise specific to his line of photography,
> just for input as to why other have changed. Presumably he has
> decided to weigh up replies and make his own decision. This is
> good. Just having "good glass" is not in itself any valid reason for
> being brand loyal when the brand has done a disservice to their
> supporters by deciding NOT to develop world class Digital cameras

We are comparing cameras made by the world's leading camera
manufacturers who are at the top of their game. The reviews that have
compared the top end cameras have *not* always declared Canon the
winner.

> and instead, opted to "badge engineer" a substitute which is rapidly
> going backwards to the opposition.

Well, if the D2x is badge engineered, I guess all those people on the
waiting lists can go and get one from one of the other suppliers.

Andrew.
April 22, 2005 3:11:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

<andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote in message
news:116hja5jlv6sff9@news.supernews.com...

> We are comparing cameras made by the world's leading camera
> manufacturers who are at the top of their game. The reviews that have
> compared the top end cameras have *not* always declared Canon the
> winner.
>
>> and instead, opted to "badge engineer" a substitute which is rapidly
>> going backwards to the opposition.
>
> Well, if the D2x is badge engineered, I guess all those people on the
> waiting lists can go and get one from one of the other suppliers.
>
> Andrew.
----------------
Few people will be able to successfully argue your points Andrew. It doesn't
matter either, which camera brand they are arguing for or against. You could
superimpose Canon for Nikon in this sort of argument and it would always
turn out the same.

My writings are based entirely on my experiences. I am not expecting any
dyed in the wool Nikonian to accept any of what I say. Most are so loyal
they'll still be shooting 4 MP when the real world is at 16 MP and loyally
defending the brand and it's shortcomings to all and sundry.

I once owned 4 Nikon and 3 Mamiya cameras along with a plethora of lenses
for both brands. I made a good living using them and if I though for one
minute I could earn as much as I do now using Canon cameras I would never
have spent money buying Canon and dumping Nikon.

At first I bought a "Fuji" Nikon for no other reason than I had the glass
and was bitterly disappointed with the results. It wasn't until a customer
lent me their Canon 10D digital that I realised what I had seen as faults in
digital photography were actually flaws in Nikon digital cameras.

I have several customers at my digital print centre who are full time paid,
newspaper photographers. They always arrive with more gear than I've ever
had... Such is the value of using your boss's gear and the cameras are Nikon
DSLRs - Company policy dictates the brand and that they are replaced 2
yearly.

I have the most difficulty getting noise out of the shadows when I make
enlargements from Nikon files shot at 400 ISO (the newspaper's requirements)
and the least difficulty with files from Canon 10D, 20D and my own 1D Mk II
at ISO as high as 1600. I have yet to experience moiré ruining a Canon
picture but have several examples from Nikon DSLRs which have.

You can question my statements all you like but at the end of the argument,
I see more files from different cameras in a week than most people see in
several years. The part I find so quaint about people who defend Nikon DSLRs
is that nearly all of the pluses they argue would be highly valid were we
talking about film cameras. Way back when the T90 was released, a reputable
magazine editor was recorded as saying: "If only this bloody thing took
Nikon lenses". It says it all. Nikon lenses on Canon bodies = the best of
the best.

I have no issues with Nikon lenses. With Nikon scanners - of which I have 2
and I have no issues with anything to do with any Nikon film camera except
maybe the plastic ones. I have real issues with the problems Professional
photographers who use my service experience every day with Nikon DSLRs. Why
do you suppose there are so many white lenses at sports meetings? I know...
It's the Nikon owners painting the lenses so they won't feel left out and
insignificant!

Read my email addy.
Douglas
Anonymous
April 22, 2005 4:18:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Douglas <decipleofeos@hotmail.com> wrote:

> <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote in message
> news:116hja5jlv6sff9@news.supernews.com...

>> We are comparing cameras made by the world's leading camera
>> manufacturers who are at the top of their game. The reviews that have
>> compared the top end cameras have *not* always declared Canon the
>> winner.
>>
>>> and instead, opted to "badge engineer" a substitute which is rapidly
>>> going backwards to the opposition.
>>
>> Well, if the D2x is badge engineered, I guess all those people on the
>> waiting lists can go and get one from one of the other suppliers.

> Few people will be able to successfully argue your points Andrew. It
> doesn't matter either, which camera brand they are arguing for or
> against. You could superimpose Canon for Nikon in this sort of
> argument and it would always turn out the same.

> My writings are based entirely on my experiences.

Okay. I guess that's true of others too.

> I am not expecting any dyed in the wool Nikonian to accept any of
> what I say. Most are so loyal they'll still be shooting 4 MP when
> the real world is at 16 MP and loyally defending the brand and it's
> shortcomings to all and sundry.

I don't understand the relevance of "4Mp" in all of this.

> I have the most difficulty getting noise out of the shadows when I
> make enlargements from Nikon files shot at 400 ISO (the newspaper's
> requirements) and the least difficulty with files from Canon 10D,
> 20D and my own 1D Mk II at ISO as high as 1600. I have yet to
> experience moiré ruining a Canon picture but have several examples
> from Nikon DSLRs which have.

Well, we already know that the D70 has an inadequate anti-aliasing
filter, but plenty of available tests indicate that so do some other
manufacturers' cameras and no manufacturer is blameless in this area.
It's foolish to extend it to all Nikons though.

> You can question my statements all you like but at the end of the
> argument,

Well, without any actual arguments other than "I say so because in my
experience it is so" there's not much to question, is there?

> Why do you suppose there are so many white lenses at sports
> meetings?

Because many sports photographers use Canon cameras. Duh.

Andreww.
Anonymous
April 22, 2005 7:39:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 11:11:09 GMT, Douglas <decipleofeos@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> I have yet to experience moiré ruining a Canon
> picture but have several examples from Nikon DSLRs which have.

I could show you a few shots from my 20D with moiré. Aliasing too.

> Read my email addy.

Yes, I understand it's Spanish for "of ugly cipleo", but what is (are?)
"cipleo"?

--
Ben Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215
Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those
questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing.
--Josh Micah Marshall
Anonymous
April 22, 2005 9:08:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"UrbanVoyeur" <nospam@nospam.org> wrote in message
news:RtX9e.43078$qO6.19808@trnddc05...
> George wrote:
>
> >>First:
> >>Nikon buys it's sensors from (I think) Sony. Sony is a large, diverse
> >>supplier of electronic components, and ... as such ... Nikon will *not*
> >>have a hugh amount of product leverage with them.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Of course Sony wants to be a big player in the digital camera arena and
> > supplies more than just Nikon, Konica/Minolta, Pentax and themselves...I
> > think they (Sony) already have any necessary incentive.
> >
>
> But not yet the skill to make a truly affordable full frame sensor. or
> we would have seen it by now.

Sony looks at it from the perspective of the TAM for full-frame sensors,
which is relatively small. They are not going to expend a lot of resources
on a component that they can only sell maybe 15,000 pieces a year of. Canon
looks at it from the perspective of needing the full frame sensor to build a
product that will generate sales of other products, such as professional
lenses.

Something's gotta give here. Sony is losing market share in digital cameras
as digital SLRs become a larger part of the market, but they don't have any
expertise in SLRs or full systems. With the failure of 4:3, they can't
bootstrap onto an existing standard either. Nikon is losing market share at
the high-end, because they are sensor-limited. Maybe the two companies could
get together somehow.
Anonymous
April 22, 2005 9:12:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Douglas" <decipleofeos@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hZ4ae.19905$5F3.13917@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

> At first I bought a "Fuji" Nikon for no other reason than I had the glass
> and was bitterly disappointed with the results. It wasn't until a customer
> lent me their Canon 10D digital that I realised what I had seen as faults
in
> digital photography were actually flaws in Nikon digital cameras.

Can you really blame Nikon for the issues with the Fuji SLRs? They are
lousy, but they are not Nikon cameras. It's like blaming Canon for the
Kodak/Sigma camera that has a Canon lens mount.

> I have the most difficulty getting noise out of the shadows when I make
> enlargements from Nikon files shot at 400 ISO (the newspaper's
requirements)
> and the least difficulty with files from Canon 10D, 20D and my own 1D Mk
II
> at ISO as high as 1600. I have yet to experience moiré ruining a Canon
> picture but have several examples from Nikon DSLRs which have.

Moire is a big problem with the Nikon DSLRs. Not sure if this is sensor
related, or what.
Anonymous
April 22, 2005 9:17:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

<andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote in message
news:116hqshsoc0l218@news.supernews.com...

> > Why do you suppose there are so many white lenses at sports
> > meetings?
>
> Because many sports photographers use Canon cameras. Duh.

And the reasons for the dominance in this segment is well known. Nikon has
no equivalent of the BWLs, and their lens mount precludes them from ever
having an equivalent, and it's too late to try to compete in this segment
even if they came out with a new lens mount.
Anonymous
April 22, 2005 9:41:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Richard Favinger, Jr." <richfavinger@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:BE8D47DF.12A26%

> Am I going to burn switching to Canon, or am I really better off just
riding
> it out with Nikon. Going to Digital, Canon or Nikon, will be a major
> investment for me. So I'd like thoughts on people who may have switched.

You're certainly not alone, among professionals, in trying to decide whether
it's worthwhile to wait around for Nikon to enter the high-end professional
digital SLR market. You're correct about the D2x, though I don't believe it
is really as bad as everyone has been saying--it's just not as good as what
Canon offers in the same segment.

If you believe it when Nikon says that they have no plans to go to larger
sensors in professional bodies, then make the switch now, and be done with
it. OTOH, most industry analysts believe than Nikon is just blowing smoke to
buy time, and is deep into development of a full-frame, or close to a
full-frame sensor. If this is the case, then you'd be better off waiting,
and maybe using a D70 for a while, while you wait for the successor the D2x.

Are you losing enough business that spending $10,000 on Canon versus $5000
on Nikon will be worth it? Are you willing to live with the issues with the
D2x, or wait for the next model?
Anonymous
April 22, 2005 9:41:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Steven M. Scharf wrote:

> If you believe it when Nikon says that they have no plans to go to larger
> sensors in professional bodies, then make the switch now, and be done with
> it. OTOH, most industry analysts believe than Nikon is just blowing smoke to
> buy time, and is deep into development of a full-frame, or close to a
> full-frame sensor. If this is the case, then you'd be better off waiting,
> and maybe using a D70 for a while, while you wait for the successor the D2x.

There is just no way that Nikon is not going to go to a larger sensor.
They'll find a rationale for the change that artfully addresses what
they've said in the past regarding larger sensors. Everyone knows that
the only reason that Nikon is dismissive of the larger sensors is
because they don't have one.

Personally, if I were the original poster, I'd do exactly as you
recommended. Get the D70 or D70x for the short term, while waiting for
the successor to the D2x. The D2x is too expensive, given the issues
with it, though these issues aren't as big as the reviews make them out
to be. You have too much glass to make the move, unless you truly need a
high end professional camera.
Anonymous
April 22, 2005 9:41:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Yakov Chiu wrote:

> Personally, if I were the original poster, I'd do exactly as you
> recommended. Get the D70 or D70x

Sorry, I meant the D70s, not the D70x.
Anonymous
April 22, 2005 9:50:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Steven M. Scharf" <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote in message
news:Xfaae.10879$sp3.10648@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
<snip
> Moire is a big problem with the Nikon DSLRs. Not sure if this is sensor
> related, or what.
>
>

Steven,

Nikon intentionally chose to use a less agressive anti-aliasing filter. I
own three Nikon DSLRs, the D70, D100 and D2X and in thousands and thousands
of shots have seen moire once -- on a screen door -- that I guarantee would
have shown moire on any Canon product too.

This is often used as a weak argument by people trying to discredit Nikon
products, but in the real world, it is not an issue.

At all.

Tom
Anonymous
April 22, 2005 9:52:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Steven M. Scharf" <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote in message
news:YGaae.14194$44.2674@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> "Richard Favinger, Jr." <richfavinger@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:BE8D47DF.12A26%
>
>> Am I going to burn switching to Canon, or am I really better off just
> riding
>> it out with Nikon. Going to Digital, Canon or Nikon, will be a major
>> investment for me. So I'd like thoughts on people who may have switched.
>
> You're certainly not alone, among professionals, in trying to decide
> whether
> it's worthwhile to wait around for Nikon to enter the high-end
> professional
> digital SLR market. You're correct about the D2x, though I don't believe
> it
> is really as bad as everyone has been saying--it's just not as good as
> what
> Canon offers in the same segment.
<snip>

I'm losing more and more respect for you with broad statements like this.
The reviews are very facorable for the D2X and it is an incredible camera.
For every quote you can find that it is not, or that the 1DsMkII is worth
the extra money, I can find you one that is at the opposite end of the
spectrum.

I was surprised at your anti-Sigma campaign, but perhaps they deserved it,
but you're sounding at bad as Tony with these broad, baseless comments.

Tom
Anonymous
April 22, 2005 10:41:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Yakov Chiu wrote:

> Yakov Chiu wrote:
>
>> Personally, if I were the original poster, I'd do exactly as you
>> recommended. Get the D70 or D70x
>
>
> Sorry, I meant the D70s, not the D70x.

At that, didn't you mean the D70s ?

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- slr-systems FAQ project: http://tinyurl.com/6m9aw
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
April 22, 2005 10:54:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Steven M. Scharf <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote:
> <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote in message
> news:116hqshsoc0l218@news.supernews.com...

>> > Why do you suppose there are so many white lenses at sports
>> > meetings?
>>
>> Because many sports photographers use Canon cameras. Duh.

> And the reasons for the dominance in this segment is well
> known. Nikon has no equivalent of the BWLs, and their lens mount
> precludes them from ever having an equivalent, and it's too late to
> try to compete in this segment even if they came out with a new lens
> mount.

The usual nonsense, in other words.

We've been round this before, and you failed to come up with any Canon
Lenses that are actually used by sports photgraphers that don't have
Nikon equivalents. The best you could manage was the 200/1.8 which
isn't even available any more. If we can talk about unobtainable
lenses I'll raise you 300mm f/2.

Back on planet Earth, thse two manufacturers compete with a very
simliar range of lenses, a fact which won't surprise anyone.

Andrew.
Anonymous
April 22, 2005 11:15:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Steven M. Scharf <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote:

> You're certainly not alone, among professionals, in trying to decide whether
> it's worthwhile to wait around for Nikon to enter the high-end professional
> digital SLR market.

They have.

> You're correct about the D2x, though I don't believe it is really as bad
> as everyone has been saying--it's just not as good as what Canon offers
> in the same segment.

Many seem to disagree, and say it is as good or better.

> Are you losing enough business that spending $10,000 on Canon versus $5000
> on Nikon will be worth it? Are you willing to live with the issues with the
> D2x, or wait for the next model?

Which issues would those be?

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
April 23, 2005 1:19:12 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:IPaae.12520$5f.2696@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> Steven,
>
> Nikon intentionally chose to use a less agressive anti-aliasing filter. I
> own three Nikon DSLRs, the D70, D100 and D2X and in thousands and
> thousands of shots have seen moire once -- on a screen door -- that I
> guarantee would have shown moire on any Canon product too.
>
> This is often used as a weak argument by people trying to discredit Nikon
> products, but in the real world, it is not an issue.
>
> At all.
>
> Tom
I have no interest in discrediting any camera maker. I merely reply with
factual information to someone asking valid questions about exactly what I
did and the reasons why. I think Nikon make some of the sharpest, highest
contrast lenses in the world. I think Canon make some of the worst digital
cameras in the world too. It still doesn't change reasons and results.

Douglas
April 23, 2005 2:25:08 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid wrote in news:116hqshsoc0l218
@news.supernews.com:
>
> I don't understand the relevance of "4Mp" in all of this.

I would guess that it is a reference to Nikon's sports/photojournalist
camera, the D2h, which is 4MPix. The Canon equivalent is the 1DMkII which
is 8MPix, but shoots at the same 8fps and has most of the same features.
The speculation is that Canon will combine the 1DsMkII and the 1DMkII to
make a MkIII camera that shoots at 8fps and has a res of 16MPix or higher.

However I don't know what Nikon will bring out in the next couple of years,
so we shall have to see how Nikon responds, time will tell.


--
Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
See my pics at www.gigatech.co.nz (last updated 16-Apr-05)
"There are 10 types of people, those that
understand binary and those that don't"
Anonymous
April 23, 2005 7:07:12 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:NRaae.12521$5f.7004@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
> I'm losing more and more respect for you with broad statements like this.
> The reviews are very facorable for the D2X and it is an incredible camera.

Did you not read what I wrote? "I don't believe it is really as bad as
everyone has been saying--it's just not as good as what Canon offers in the
same segment." I was disagreeing with the premise of the original poster.

The previews of the D2x have not been glowing, unless you're referring to
the "reviews" from people like Ken Rockwell, Thom Hogan, Bjørn Rørslett, or
Moose Peterson, which are so biased that they make even the Nikon loyalists
uneasy. The real reviews have not yet come out.

> For every quote you can find that it is not, or that the 1DsMkII is worth
> the extra money

The D2x is not a competitor to the 1Ds Mark II, it is somewhere between the
20D and the EOS 1D Mark II.

> I was surprised at your anti-Sigma campaign, but perhaps they deserved it.

It was not a question of deserving it or not, it was just the facts. And it
was more because I hated to see people like Peter or Gionovella trying to
mislead people.

> but you're sounding at bad as Tony with these broad, baseless comments.

Not sure who Tony is, but the comments I make are certainly not baseless.
Anonymous
April 23, 2005 7:11:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Yakov Chiu" <chiuynospam@sbc.com> wrote in message
news:116iu074dafc4c4@corp.supernews.com...
> Steven M. Scharf wrote:
>
> > If you believe it when Nikon says that they have no plans to go to
larger
> > sensors in professional bodies, then make the switch now, and be done
with
> > it. OTOH, most industry analysts believe than Nikon is just blowing
smoke to
> > buy time, and is deep into development of a full-frame, or close to a
> > full-frame sensor. If this is the case, then you'd be better off
waiting,
> > and maybe using a D70 for a while, while you wait for the successor the
D2x.
>
> There is just no way that Nikon is not going to go to a larger sensor.
> They'll find a rationale for the change that artfully addresses what
> they've said in the past regarding larger sensors. Everyone knows that
> the only reason that Nikon is dismissive of the larger sensors is
> because they don't have one.

This is true. Yet I don't believe that they are very close to a larger
sensor, as there would have been some sort of a leak by now.

> Personally, if I were the original poster, I'd do exactly as you
> recommended. Get the D70 or D70x for the short term, while waiting for
> the successor to the D2x. The D2x is too expensive, given the issues
> with it, though these issues aren't as big as the reviews make them out
> to be. You have too much glass to make the move, unless you truly need a
> high end professional camera.

This is good advice, unless the original poster has a need for the
advantages of the larger sensor.
Anonymous
April 23, 2005 7:45:11 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <m1jae.11232$sp3.1313@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
scharf.steven@linkearth.net says...

> This is good advice, unless the original poster has a need for the
> advantages of the larger sensor.

What, precisely, is the advantage of a larger sensor? Pixels
are pixels, so I don't see how it corresponds in any way to
the difference in film format sizes.

Diane
Anonymous
April 23, 2005 8:20:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Diane Wilson" <diane@firelily.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1cd38ed56a1d3941989acc@news-server...
> In article <m1jae.11232$sp3.1313@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
> scharf.steven@linkearth.net says...
>
> > This is good advice, unless the original poster has a need for the
> > advantages of the larger sensor.
>
> What, precisely, is the advantage of a larger sensor?

1. Larger pixels
2. Wide angle lenses remain wide angle lenses

> Pixels are pixels, so I don't see how it corresponds in any way to the
difference in film format sizes.

That is very simplistic.

Pixel pitch is an issue because due to semiconductor physics, the smaller
the pixel size, the greater the noise. Pixel pitch is not always an accurate
indicator of the noise levels, since some cameras with large pixel pitches
still have excessive noise. For example, the Foveon sensor used in the Sigma
SD9 & SD10 has a large pixel pitch, but is much noisier than the
smaller-pitch sensor in the Canon EOS-20D. Canon has proven to be especially
good at keeping noise levels down even as the pixel pitch shrinks.

There are noise issues with very small pixel pitches. The Kodak KAF-8300CE
sensor, used in the Olympus E-300, has a pixel pitch of 5.4 microns, the
smallest of any CCD (this is necessary because the sensor is very small,
with a 2.0 crop factor for the 4:3 system). The new Nikon D2X has almost as
small a pixel pitch as the Olympus, 5.5 microns, and has noise issues that
are inexcusable for a camera as expensive as the D2X.

Pixel density is simply the number of pixels per square millimeter of sensor
area. In general, the lower the pixel density the better, because it implies
larger pixels (which means lower noise).

There are also moiré issues with small pixel pitches, though at least Canon
has done a good job in solving the moiré issue.

Also see " http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/does.pixel.size.matt..."

Hope this helps,

Steve
http://digitalslrinfo.com/
April 23, 2005 8:27:44 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Diane Wilson" <diane@firelily.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1cd38ed56a1d3941989acc@news-server...
> In article <m1jae.11232$sp3.1313@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
> scharf.steven@linkearth.net says...
>
>> This is good advice, unless the original poster has a need for the
>> advantages of the larger sensor.
>
> What, precisely, is the advantage of a larger sensor? Pixels
> are pixels, so I don't see how it corresponds in any way to
> the difference in film format sizes.
>
> Diane
----------------
You really are masterful with your comments Diane, arn't you?

I can interpolate an image from a full frame sensor of 4 MP to the same size
as one from an 8 MP "small" sensor and you wouldn't be able to tell which
one was from which sensor. Full frame sensors produce technologically better
data. How big do you suppose the sensor on the Mars Rover was/is and how
large do you think Nasa printed it's images?

Douglas
Anonymous
April 23, 2005 9:23:18 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Douglas <decipleofeos@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Full frame sensors produce technologically better data. How big do you
> suppose the sensor on the Mars Rover was/is and how large do you think
> Nasa printed it's images?

The image area of the Mars Rover CCDs is 12.29mm square, 17.38mm diagonal.

"Full-frame sensors" produce better data all else being equal. When all
else is not equal, that isn't necessarily the case, of course.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
Anonymous
April 23, 2005 12:17:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 12:06:55 -0400, Richard Favinger, Jr. wrote:

> Hi all,
> I have been a Nikon user since my first SLR an N70 (Film), I am a semi pro
> photographer. My main body now is the Nikon F100. I am looking to make the
> switch to digital. Not being digital is killing my business.
>
> I have some Nikon pro glass, 24 2.8; 50 1.4; 60 2.8 Macro; 85 1.8; 80-200
> 2.8 S... I am prepared to eat it, as it where, and switch to Canon Digital.
> So are there any Nikon users out there that have made the switch to Canon
> and are happy for it, and would do it again? Hey, I switched to Mac, and now
> could care less about M$.
>
> I can't help but feel that with even the release of the D2X, Nikon is STILL
> behind Canon, and the D2X didn't even get off the ground right. What are
> your thoughts on this?
>
> Am I going to burn switching to Canon, or am I really better off just riding
> it out with Nikon. Going to Digital, Canon or Nikon, will be a major
> investment for me. So I'd like thoughts on people who may have switched.
>
> Rich
> http://www.favingerphotography.com/

I have been there and come back home.

When the D30 was the flavour of the month I did the stupid thing and
traded all my pro Nikon stuff for semi-pro and pro Canon stuff. After the
D30 broke I realised just what a big mistake I had made. I could have gone
for the pro-spec Canon bodies, but they were just too expensive, so I did
what any self-respecting photographer does: I went back to the best 35mm
system in the world! Nikon.

No matter how appealing it looks, you will be on a hiding to nothing if
you trade your Nikon glass for Canon glass. Not because of quality issues,
but you will have to spend $$$ to get the same.

I see nothing to suggest that the D2x is in any way inferior to the Canon
1DMkII. In fact, feature for feature the D2x is way on top.

Keep your glass, get a digital body that fits it.

--
Be careful what you wish for.
Anonymous
April 23, 2005 12:23:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 03:07:12 +0000, Steven M. Scharf wrote:

> The D2x is not a competitor to the 1Ds Mark II, it is somewhere between the
> 20D and the EOS 1D Mark II.

What exactly are you smoking?

*Between* the 20D and the 1DMkII??? It's head and shoulders above both
those cameras, you twerp!

--
Be careful what you wish for.
April 23, 2005 12:47:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Roxy d'Urban" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:p an.2005.04.23.06.23.13.131000@home.com...

>
> *Between* the 20D and the 1DMkII??? It's head and shoulders above both
> those cameras, you twerp!
>
> --
> Be careful what you wish for.

Yeah... In your dreams Roxy...
April 23, 2005 12:53:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Jeremy Nixon" <jeremy@exit109.com> wrote in message
news:116jmu6rgmn3e9e@corp.supernews.com...
> Douglas <decipleofeos@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Full frame sensors produce technologically better data. How big do you
>> suppose the sensor on the Mars Rover was/is and how large do you think
>> Nasa printed it's images?
>
> The image area of the Mars Rover CCDs is 12.29mm square, 17.38mm diagonal.
>
> "Full-frame sensors" produce better data all else being equal. When all
> else is not equal, that isn't necessarily the case, of course.
>
> --
> Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com

Don't answer simplisticly and accuse other of doing just that Jeremy... It's
called biggotry.
Perhaps I should have asked the question a little differently like: how many
PIXELS are on the sensor of the mars rover.

Now Jeremy... For the really big answer: How big did they print it's images?

Douglas
Anonymous
April 23, 2005 6:31:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Steven M. Scharf wrote:

> The previews of the D2x have not been glowing, unless you're referring to
> the "reviews" from people like Ken Rockwell, Thom Hogan, Bjørn Rørslett, or
> Moose Peterson, which are so biased that they make even the Nikon loyalists
> uneasy.

.... and anti Nikon dicks like yourself positively rabid.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- slr-systems FAQ project: http://tinyurl.com/6m9aw
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
April 23, 2005 8:41:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Roxy d'Urban" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news:p an.2005.04.23.06.23.13.131000@home.com...
> On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 03:07:12 +0000, Steven M. Scharf wrote:
>
> > The D2x is not a competitor to the 1Ds Mark II, it is somewhere between
the
> > 20D and the EOS 1D Mark II.
>
> What exactly are you smoking?
>
> *Between* the 20D and the 1DMkII??? It's head and shoulders above both
> those cameras, you twerp!

You are not looking at the big picture, no pun intended. You're making the
classic mistake of looking only at the number of pixels, without looking at
other factors. The 1D Mark II is lower resolution, but has a much larger
sensor. The larger pixels result in much lower noise levels.

Anyone making a decision on Canon versus Nikon in that segment (low-end
professional) will be comparing the D2x to the 1DMarkII. The deciding factor
will more likely be which lenses the buyer already has. It's not like the
1Ds Mark II, where Nikon has nothing in that segment.
Anonymous
April 23, 2005 10:11:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Douglas <decipleofeos@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Don't answer simplisticly and accuse other of doing just that Jeremy... It's
> called biggotry.

I've never heard it called that, but okay. The point is, while the *theory*
is that a physically-larger sensor will be better, in practice it is not
necessarily true.

> Perhaps I should have asked the question a little differently like: how many
> PIXELS are on the sensor of the mars rover.

1 million.

> Now Jeremy... For the really big answer: How big did they print it's images?

I haven't a clue. The other point is that the Mars Rover cameras don't really
have much relevance to the kind of digital cameras we're talking about.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
Anonymous
April 23, 2005 10:13:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Steven M. Scharf <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote:

> Anyone making a decision on Canon versus Nikon in that segment (low-end
> professional) will be comparing the D2x to the 1DMarkII.

It's odd, then, how all the comparisons are between the D2x and the 1Ds2.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
Anonymous
April 23, 2005 10:13:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Jeremy Nixon wrote:

> Steven M. Scharf <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Anyone making a decision on Canon versus Nikon in that segment (low-end
>>professional) will be comparing the D2x to the 1DMarkII.
>
>
> It's odd, then, how all the comparisons are between the D2x and the 1Ds2.
>

Now, now. Don't screw up Steven's skewed reality that permits him
distorted statements.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- slr-systems FAQ project: http://tinyurl.com/6m9aw
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 2:32:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:D 4e49l$lv3$3@inews.gazeta.pl...
> Steven M. Scharf wrote:
>
> > The previews of the D2x have not been glowing, unless you're referring
to
> > the "reviews" from people like Ken Rockwell, Thom Hogan, Bjørn Rørslett,
or
> > Moose Peterson, which are so biased that they make even the Nikon
loyalists
> > uneasy.
>
> ... and anti Nikon dicks like yourself positively rabid.

Those reviews amuse me greatly. They leave me shaking my head and wondering
why these guys need to lie like they do, and of course your language doesn't
make you look too bright either.

Think of it this way. If you were given $5000 to purchase a digital SLR
camera body, and you didn't have any lenses, would you choose the D2x or the
1D Mark II, keeping in mind that you're going to have to purchase lenses
yourself.

The 1D Mark II has the following major advantages:

1. Larger sensor size which means both lower noise, and wider wide-angle for
the same lens on a smaller sensor.

2. Better lens mount.

3. Better selection of lenses, including some lenses that Nikon cannot ever
make, due to their lens mount's limitations.

The D2x's only major advantage is higher resolution. It's a fine camera if
you already have Nikon lenses, but it's not going to attract new
professionals.
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 2:32:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Steven M. Scharf" <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote in message
news:A1Aae.15424$44.2312@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
> news:D 4e49l$lv3$3@inews.gazeta.pl...
>> Steven M. Scharf wrote:
>>
>> > The previews of the D2x have not been glowing, unless you're referring
> to
>> > the "reviews" from people like Ken Rockwell, Thom Hogan, Bjørn
>> > Rørslett,
> or
>> > Moose Peterson, which are so biased that they make even the Nikon
> loyalists
>> > uneasy.
>>
>> ... and anti Nikon dicks like yourself positively rabid.
>
> Those reviews amuse me greatly. They leave me shaking my head and
> wondering
> why these guys need to lie like they do, and of course your language
> doesn't
> make you look too bright either.
>
> Think of it this way. If you were given $5000 to purchase a digital SLR
> camera body, and you didn't have any lenses, would you choose the D2x or
> the
> 1D Mark II, keeping in mind that you're going to have to purchase lenses
> yourself.
>
> The 1D Mark II has the following major advantages:
>
> 1. Larger sensor size which means both lower noise, and wider wide-angle
> for
> the same lens on a smaller sensor.
>
> 2. Better lens mount.
>
> 3. Better selection of lenses, including some lenses that Nikon cannot
> ever
> make, due to their lens mount's limitations.
>
> The D2x's only major advantage is higher resolution. It's a fine camera if
> you already have Nikon lenses, but it's not going to attract new
> professionals.
>
>
You forgot higher resolution at maximum frame rate, 8mp at 8 fps vs. 6.8mp
at 8 fps...

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
April 24, 2005 5:48:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"RSD99" <rsdwla.NOSPAM@gte.net> wrote in
news:JCQ9e.24811$H_5.2521@trnddc01:

> Third:
> Nikon is a (relatively) small optics and photographic company. They
> have made many excellent to superb products throughout the last fifty
> years or so. However, the company's resources and assets are
> (relatively) limited.
>
> Canon is a hugh conglomerate, and manufacturers many products. By
> comparison to Nikon, the company has very substantial resources and
> assets. Included in those assets are several "cash cow" product lines
> that can internally provide the financing for developing better
> cameras, sensors, and lenses.

Do you have any idea of what company owns Nikon? It seems that Canon use
the same brand name for a lot of different products, but some Japanese
companies use different name for different divisions (car/consumer
electronics/photography/etc).

Nikon is owned by Mitsubishi Industries. Mitsubishi is not a small
company.


--
Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
See my pics at www.gigatech.co.nz (last updated 16-Apr-05)
"There are 10 types of people, those that
understand binary and those that don't"
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 6:44:41 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

MarkH wrote:
> "RSD99" <rsdwla.NOSPAM@gte.net> wrote in
> news:JCQ9e.24811$H_5.2521@trnddc01:
>
>
>>Third:
>>Nikon is a (relatively) small optics and photographic company. They
>>have made many excellent to superb products throughout the last fifty
>>years or so. However, the company's resources and assets are
>>(relatively) limited.
>>
>>Canon is a hugh conglomerate, and manufacturers many products. By
>>comparison to Nikon, the company has very substantial resources and
>>assets. Included in those assets are several "cash cow" product lines
>>that can internally provide the financing for developing better
>>cameras, sensors, and lenses.
>
>
> Do you have any idea of what company owns Nikon? It seems that Canon use
> the same brand name for a lot of different products, but some Japanese
> companies use different name for different divisions (car/consumer
> electronics/photography/etc).
>
> Nikon is owned by Mitsubishi Industries. Mitsubishi is not a small
> company.
>
>

Though Misubishi owns Nikon, IMO it has not had the same positive effect
as Canon's size. I don't know why.

Maybe it's because Nikon functions as a wholly owned but independent
subsidiary of Misubishi, joined only at the board level, whereas Canon's
diverse product lines are just divisions in a single corporate,
management and financial structure.

That would make it much easier for Canon as an organization to leverage
the strengths, financial and otherwise, of its many divisions to support
its cameras.

--

J

www.urbanvoyeur.com
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 6:44:42 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"UrbanVoyeur" <nospam@nospam.org> wrote in message
news:tKDae.307$oD6.256@trndny07...

>>
>> Nikon is owned by Mitsubishi Industries. Mitsubishi is not a small
>> company.
>>
>>
>
> Though Misubishi owns Nikon, IMO it has not had the same positive effect
> as Canon's size. I don't know why.
>
> Maybe it's because Nikon functions as a wholly owned but independent
> subsidiary of Misubishi, joined only at the board level, whereas Canon's
> diverse product lines are just divisions in a single corporate, management
> and financial structure.
>
> That would make it much easier for Canon as an organization to leverage
> the strengths, financial and otherwise, of its many divisions to support
> its cameras.
>
> --
>
> J
>
> www.urbanvoyeur.com

Have you checked Mitsu's auto business, lately? It's bad enough over there
that DaimlerChrysler quit feeding them more money, it's pretty dire. Not
much spare money in Mitsubishi's bank account, I'd warrant...

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 8:26:11 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote in message
news:eXEae.69315$lz2.68501@fed1read07...

> You forgot higher resolution at maximum frame rate, 8mp at 8 fps vs. 6.8mp
> at 8 fps...

Yeah, though this is not really a "major" advantage. If anything, it's an
excuse to get the D2x versus the D2Hs, but I don't believe that the 1.2
megapixel difference at 8 frames per second is all that important.
!