Mamiya reviewer takes swipe at Canon

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

RichA wrote:
> From:
> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/ [...] e=14061752
>
> The ZD offers sensitivities from ISO 50 to 400. The sensor seems to be
> sensitive to color noise, but with a program such as Noise Ninja can
> easily cleaned up. I therefore vote for 800 and 1600 ISO as well,
> preferably without the overdone smoothing which Canon uses to achieve
> "low-noise" at high ISOs.

It's well known amongst Professionals that Canon's high ISO-low noise
performance is software enhanced and no better than Nikon, Sony or
Olympus. I have many times commented that I can enlarge high noise Nikon
files with more detail than Canon files.

Douglas

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

Tony Polson babbles:

> Ryadia <just@the.group> wrote:
>
>>It's well known amongst Professionals that Canon's high ISO-low noise
>>performance is software enhanced and no better than Nikon, Sony or
>>Olympus. I have many times commented that I can enlarge high noise Nikon
>>files with more detail than Canon files.
>
> Indeed so. The 6 MP files from the Nikon D70 have more usable detail
> than the 8 MP files from the Canon EOS 350D and 20D.

Even if "Ryadia's" claims are true, your statement is still a non
sequitur.

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

LOL

eawckyegcy@yahoo.com wrote:
> Ryadia wrote:
>
> > It's well known amongst Professionals that Canon's high ISO-low noise
> > performance is software enhanced and no better than Nikon, Sony or
> > Olympus.
>
> That must explain blatantly high Canon:Nikon, Canon:Sony, and
> Canonlympus ratios I observe in professional circles. Yes. What
> other explanation could there be for this? Canon is "no better" thus
> all these professionals are buying Canon.
>
> > I have many times commented that I can enlarge high noise Nikon
> > files with more detail than Canon files.
>
> Well, I guess that settles it. What more proof do we need? Just out
> of curiosity, how many times did you have to "comment" on this before
> it became true?

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

On 29 Jun 2005 14:55:27 -0700, "eawckyegcy@yahoo.com"
<eawckyegcy@yahoo.com> wrote:

>That must explain blatantly high Canon:Nikon, Canon:Sony, and
>Canonlympus ratios I observe in professional circles. Yes. What
>other explanation could there be for this? Canon is "no better" thus
>all these professionals are buying Canon.


All those professionals are buying Canon due to the huge discounts
offered to professional photographers during the 1990's. During an
internship at a daily newspaper I was using Nikon, as were one or two
other photographers on staff. When I asked why everyone else was now
using Canon (and some of the newspaper's own specialty lenses were
Canon) I was told that Canon was making a concerted effort to take
over the photojournalism market. I was told that the Canon lenses
were, for them, at least 50% of the Nikon equivalent.
It was a quite brilliant strategy. Look at the results now. All the
gearheads and amateurs want Canon lenses because the pros use them,
and the pros use them because they have built up their lens systems to
a point where it would be unreasonable to ever switch. Nikon was
definitely asleep at the switch during that time period.

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

"eawckyegcy@yahoo.com" <eawckyegcy@yahoo.com> writes:

> Tony Polson babbles:
>
>> Ryadia <just@the.group> wrote:
>>
>>>It's well known amongst Professionals that Canon's high ISO-low noise
>>>performance is software enhanced and no better than Nikon, Sony or
>>>Olympus. I have many times commented that I can enlarge high noise Nikon
>>>files with more detail than Canon files.
>>
>> Indeed so. The 6 MP files from the Nikon D70 have more usable detail
>> than the 8 MP files from the Canon EOS 350D and 20D.
>
> Even if "Ryadia's" claims are true, your statement is still a non
> sequitur.

I have no idea if the claim is true -- I own *none* of the three
cameras in question.

However, the statement is certainly not a non-sequitur. You're making
the common mistake of confusing nominal image size (megapixels) with
actual resolution (ability to capture detail in the scene).
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailtod-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>

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

briansgooglegroupemail@yahoo.com wrote:
> LOL
>
> eawckyegcy@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>>Ryadia wrote:
>>
>>
>>>It's well known amongst Professionals that Canon's high ISO-low noise
>>>performance is software enhanced and no better than Nikon, Sony or
>>>Olympus.
>>
>>That must explain blatantly high Canon:Nikon, Canon:Sony, and
>>Canonlympus ratios I observe in professional circles. Yes. What
>>other explanation could there be for this? Canon is "no better" thus
>>all these professionals are buying Canon.
>>
>>
>>>I have many times commented that I can enlarge high noise Nikon
>>>files with more detail than Canon files.
>>
>>Well, I guess that settles it. What more proof do we need? Just out
>>of curiosity, how many times did you have to "comment" on this before
>>it became true?
>
>

Feeling like you do about reality...
Maybe playing with razor blades with your eyes closed might not be such
a bad idea.

Douglas

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

"Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3ihhguFlh29bU2@individual.net...
> george wrote:
>
>> Heck, if
>> Canon was "no worse" than Nikon but 15% cheaper, what do you think pros
>> would be using?
>
> Or if Canon gave a STEEP discount to pro's (which they have) which would
> they buy? Like someone else said, great advertising because there are
> thousands (millions?) of "wannabe's" who will buy a product just because
> they see a pro using them. You think Tiger wins because he uses Nike
> clubs?
> He wins in SPITE of using them! You think the autolite plugs John Force
> uses are the same as the ones you buy at autozone? Yea right...
>
> --
>
> Stacey

Stacey-

I thought something like that must have happened (Canon has been trying to
break
Nikon's stranglehold on the pro market since they (Canon) brought out their
original
F-1). I've been happy with my Nikons since 1973. About the biggest
difference I
see between the two is:
1) Nikon advantage in the lens line in shorter focal lengths (Canon doesn't
even have
a fisheye for dslrs - let alone one that can be transformed to rectilinear)
2) Canon advantage in the lens line in longer telephotos (and price of them)
3) Nikon advantage for a coherent sensor size strategy
4) Canon advantage if you absolutely want "full frame" sensor (and can
afford it)
5) Nikon advantage in firmware stability before release (some Canons look
like
owning makes you a member of the "patch-of-the-week" club...sort of the ATI
of
cameras)

George

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

eawckyegcy@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
> I can't recall if I have ever spoken with you before, and it's very hot
> today so I don't feel like googling up an answer. So I'll be nice:
>
> Shove your misrepresentations from whence they came. Or, failing that,
> please feel free to point out where I equated popularity with
> superiority.
>
> What I did say (sarcastically) was that Canon is popular _because_ it
> is, arguably, _superior_. That is to say: it is not "no better" -- it
> _IS_ better.
>
> If, in addition to this, Canon was offering their _superior_ gear at
> lower prices, offering better service for their _superior_ equipment,
> or lending out their _superior_ stuff under favourable conditions to
> better known photographers, or whatever, I may indeed agree any of, or
> all of, this could make the product even _more_ popular. Not my
> problem though: it is the Nikon Nutcase position that Canon's success
> can be attributed _only_ to their marketing department. (One wonders
> what these nitwits were bellowing about a some time ago when Nikon,
> arguable superior at the time, was ascendent. Surely it wasn't their
> amazing marketing skills?)
>

How do you pronounce your name? I hate having a conversation with
alphabet souper's namesake.

Douglas

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

eawckyegcy@yahoo.com wrote:

>That must explain blatantly high Canon:Nikon, Canon:Sony, and

Professionals buy Canon over Nikon for several reasons, the lower noise
of the Canon sensor being one of them. However I don't believe that the
lower noise at higher ISOs is the major reason. The first reason is
that Canon has had professional models available for a lot longer, so
naturally Canon has a much larger market share. After that, the
availability of larger sensors on the Canon's, mean more lens choices,
especially at the wider angles.

You can read what professionals look for over at:

"http://nordicgroup.us/digicam/dslrcriteria/professional.html"

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

On 3 Jul 2005 09:20:04 -0700, "Scharf-DCA" <scharf.steven@gmail.com>
wrote:

>eawckyegcy@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>>That must explain blatantly high Canon:Nikon, Canon:Sony, and
>
>Professionals buy Canon over Nikon for several reasons, the lower noise
>of the Canon sensor being one of them. However I don't believe that the
>lower noise at higher ISOs is the major reason. The first reason is
>that Canon has had professional models available for a lot longer, so
>naturally Canon has a much larger market share. After that, the
>availability of larger sensors on the Canon's, mean more lens choices,
>especially at the wider angles.
>
>You can read what professionals look for over at:
>
>"http://nordicgroup.us/digicam/dslrcriteria/professional.html"

There is something to be said for "buying" a market.
AMD is now suing Intel for doing just that. I'm surprised
Nikon hasn't sued Canon.
-Rich

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

McLeod <cerveza@xplornet.com> wrote:

>On 3 Jul 2005 09:20:04 -0700, "Scharf-DCA" <scharf.steven@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>The first reason is
>>that Canon has had professional models available for a lot longer, so
>>naturally Canon has a much larger market share. After that, the
>>availability of larger sensors on the Canon's, mean more lens choices,
>>especially at the wider angles.
>>
>>You can read what professionals look for over at:
>>
>>"http://nordicgroup.us/digicam/dslrcriteria/professional.html"
>
>Typical made up bull again. You can't just keep making this stuff up
>Steve. Eventually people call you on it. That first sentence is just
>pure bull. If that was the case why doesn't Kodak have the largest
>market share? I was using professional Kodak cameras before Canon or
>Nikon had one built.
>
>I believe the Nikon D1 was out at least 6 months before the D30 if I'm
>not mistaken...and I still know a someone who was using it for
>professional work up to last fall.
>
>What is your reference for your criteria? Oh wait, it's the same as
>the rest of your website, snippets of stuff from different websites
>mixed with a healthy dose of personal opinion. I don't believe you
>even are a professional photographer Steve, so that makes half of the
>stuff on your website invalid. If you were a pro you would understand
>that the camera is only a tool. The proper tool for one job is not
>the proper tool for another. The mind of the photographer is what
>creates the image.


Sigma has Preddy. Canon has Scharf.

;-)

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

RichA wrote:

> There is something to be said for "buying" a market.
> AMD is now suing Intel for doing just that. I'm surprised

It is quite different.

No one has suggested that Canon has induced resellers to not carry
Nikon products, in an effort to boost market share.

What Intel does is to induce computer manufacturers to not use products
by AMD (as well as others in the past, such as IIT, Cyrix, Rise,
Transmeta, etc). They do this with both a carrot and a stick. The
carrot is MDF (marketing development funds), and the stick is the
threat of reduced supply of limited availability components, and the
threat of lack of access to advance information on new products (yellow
books).

I.e. read
"http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:FJzvn_KZYgAJ:www.theregister.co.uk/2000/11/01/ibm_knifes_crusoe_thinkpad/+transmeta+ipo+ibm+intel&hl=en"

The last minute decision by IBM to not bring this platform to market,
even though it was all set for production, was a direct result of the
type of thing that AMD is suing about. However, it is not clear that
giving a manufacturer MDF in order for it to not use a competitor's
product, is illegal.