This is my impression (Canon and Nikon)

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

This is not a troll. I dislike the idea of Nikon reduced
to a "stuggling" company, being punished for trying to
maintain quality. It smacks of "Walmartism" on the part
of the American consumer.
And I don't have the figures to prove it, but it seems
that Canon's base lenses are inferior to just about every
camera maker (of DSLRs) out there. It seems like you have
to jump to "Ls" in order to get a really good image.
Whats even more galling is that they produce outstanding
sensors in cheap cameras and yet pair them with junk optics,
unless you are smart enough or have enough money to correct this.
I've never heard anyone criticize Nikon or even Pentax's
lenses like I have for Canon. So why does Canon stratify
their lens classes so much? Is it to maintain a profit margin
and if they sell some dog zooms to to unwashed, so what?
I used to look on Nikon as the God of camera brands.
Now I see them as the underdog, with the better product,
a company concerned solely with quality, no matter what level
it's aimed at.
-Rich

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

On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 21:39:08 -0700, Randall Ainsworth
<rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote:

>In article <2ljmc1p2i9mhi76u7vn29otk26nq6ea4dq@4ax.com>, RichA
><none@none.com> wrote:
>
>> This is not a troll. I dislike the idea of Nikon reduced
>> to a "stuggling" company, being punished for trying to
>> maintain quality. It smacks of "Walmartism" on the part
>> of the American consumer.
>> And I don't have the figures to prove it, but it seems
>> that Canon's base lenses are inferior to just about every
>> camera maker (of DSLRs) out there. It seems like you have
>> to jump to "Ls" in order to get a really good image.
>> Whats even more galling is that they produce outstanding
>> sensors in cheap cameras and yet pair them with junk optics,
>> unless you are smart enough or have enough money to correct this.
>> I've never heard anyone criticize Nikon or even Pentax's
>> lenses like I have for Canon. So why does Canon stratify
>> their lens classes so much? Is it to maintain a profit margin
>> and if they sell some dog zooms to to unwashed, so what?
>> I used to look on Nikon as the God of camera brands.
>> Now I see them as the underdog, with the better product,
>> a company concerned solely with quality, no matter what level
>> it's aimed at.
>
>Once again you've displayed your level of retardation.
>
>I have two consumer-grade Canon lenses - can't afford the "L" glass
>right now. I have 16x20s and 20x24s printed from them (by a
>professional lab) which look great.

Do you know of any "amateur labs?"

>Fact is, Nikon hasn't kept up with the marketplace. They're still
>making D100s for chrissake.

Isn't Canon still making the Rebel?
-Rich

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

Rich,
You could look at it like this:
Canon is making high quality cameras (ex
Canons DSLR always did ISO 100 where
Nikons best was ISO 200), and low cost
lenses so newbies can enter the
photography world. And then upgrade
when they find it worth it.

Like Randall said some of there cheap
lenses are actually very good, 28-105 is
excellent for its price and so is the
50mm f/1.8 (how can you beat a $70
lens?). Canon 100mm Macro is a top
dollar lens for not top dollar price (at
least when compared to the L series
prices).

Just an idea to think about.

"RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:2ljmc1p2i9mhi76u7vn29otk26nq6ea4dq@
4ax.com...
> This is not a troll. I dislike the
idea of Nikon reduced
> to a "stuggling" company, being
punished for trying to
> maintain quality. It smacks of
"Walmartism" on the part
> of the American consumer.
> And I don't have the figures to prove
it, but it seems
> that Canon's base lenses are inferior
to just about every
> camera maker (of DSLRs) out there. It
seems like you have
> to jump to "Ls" in order to get a
really good image.
> Whats even more galling is that they
produce outstanding
> sensors in cheap cameras and yet pair
them with junk optics,
> unless you are smart enough or have
enough money to correct this.
> I've never heard anyone criticize
Nikon or even Pentax's
> lenses like I have for Canon. So why
does Canon stratify
> their lens classes so much? Is it to
maintain a profit margin
> and if they sell some dog zooms to to
unwashed, so what?
> I used to look on Nikon as the God of
camera brands.
> Now I see them as the underdog, with
the better product,
> a company concerned solely with
quality, no matter what level
> it's aimed at.
> -Rich




----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

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

In article <7j3nc1lhq94oj213shtlvd7931mnmokefe@4ax.com>, RichA
<none@none.com> wrote:

> Do you know of any "amateur labs?"

They're all over the place.

> >Fact is, Nikon hasn't kept up with the marketplace. They're still
> >making D100s for chrissake.
>
> Isn't Canon still making the Rebel?

The Rebel uses current technology, the D100 does not.

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

"RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:7j3nc1lhq94oj213shtlvd7931mnmokefe@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 21:39:08 -0700, Randall Ainsworth
> <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <2ljmc1p2i9mhi76u7vn29otk26nq6ea4dq@4ax.com>, RichA
>><none@none.com> wrote:
>>
>>> This is not a troll. I dislike the idea of Nikon reduced
>>> to a "stuggling" company, being punished for trying to
>>> maintain quality. It smacks of "Walmartism" on the part
>>> of the American consumer.
>>> And I don't have the figures to prove it, but it seems
>>> that Canon's base lenses are inferior to just about every
>>> camera maker (of DSLRs) out there. It seems like you have
>>> to jump to "Ls" in order to get a really good image.

Look here:
http://www.photodo.com/nav/prodindex.html

>>> Whats even more galling is that they produce outstanding
>>> sensors in cheap cameras and yet pair them with junk optics,

The 17-85 f4-5.6 IS USM is hardly "junk optics." And it is paired with the
20D in kit form.

>>> unless you are smart enough or have enough money to correct this.
>>> I've never heard anyone criticize Nikon or even Pentax's
>>> lenses like I have for Canon. So why does Canon stratify
>>> their lens classes so much? Is it to maintain a profit margin
>>> and if they sell some dog zooms to to unwashed, so what?
>>> I used to look on Nikon as the God of camera brands.

That being said, Canon has always been more consumer oriented than Nikon,
and, thus, aimed at a lower common denominator.

>>> Now I see them as the underdog, with the better product,

Not better, different, and differently aimed.

>>> a company concerned solely with quality, no matter what level
>>> it's aimed at.

Then buy a Nikon. The real difference between product is so slight as to
make any argument based on reality rather moot. Most of the condemnation
you hear of Canon optics comes from non Canon users. Yes, the 18-55 is a
less than stellar performer. It costs much less than the Nikon equivalent
and gives reasonably decent images:
http://www.shutterspeedway.com/cgi [...] picture=26

The majority of lenses in the non "L" category are excellent, from the 85mm
f1.8, 100mm f2 and 50mm f1.4 to the 28-135mm f3.5-5.6 IS USM. I'm sure that
Nikon makes just as good a bunch of lenses, and anything I say is not meant
to be construed as criticism of that line, or any other.
>>
Like Randall, I have several images shot on film and digital with the 28-135
and enlarged to 20x24 and 24x36 that are excellent.
>>
>>I have two consumer-grade Canon lenses - can't afford the "L" glass
>>right now. I have 16x20s and 20x24s printed from them (by a
>>professional lab) which look great.
>
> Do you know of any "amateur labs?"

Ritz Camera and Walmart are examples of "amateur labs."

>
>>Fact is, Nikon hasn't kept up with the marketplace. They're still
>>making D100s for chrissake.
>
> Isn't Canon still making the Rebel?

Which came out long after the D100 did, and has been supplanted by the Rebel
XT.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

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

Stacey wrote:

> Skip M wrote:
>
>
>
>>Like Randall, I have several images shot on film and digital with the
>>28-135 and enlarged to 20x24 and 24x36 that are excellent.
>
>
> You actually think anyone with any 35mm film or digital camera can make
> "excellent" 24X36" prints from those formats? You must have a -really- low
> threshold of what comprizes excellent. IMHO those sizes are pushing what
> 6X7 medium format can deliver quality prints from.
>
careful...
Beethoven was still pretty good at his art when he was deaf.
and 20x24 could be cm - we're not all yanks posting in here.
:-)

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

"Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3j3v1cFo2908U1@individual.net...
> Skip M wrote:
>
>
>> Like Randall, I have several images shot on film and digital with the
>> 28-135 and enlarged to 20x24 and 24x36 that are excellent.
>
> You actually think anyone with any 35mm film or digital camera can make
> "excellent" 24X36" prints from those formats? You must have a -really- low
> threshold of what comprizes excellent. IMHO those sizes are pushing what
> 6X7 medium format can deliver quality prints from.
>
> --
>
> Stacey

Stacey,

Have you done it? I have. Epson 7600. Nikon D70.

Outstanding.

Tom

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

In message <42cbad00$1_2@spool9-west.superfeed.net>,
"John_B" <webmaster@firstchurchofthestreets.com> wrote:

>Rich,
>You could look at it like this:
>Canon is making high quality cameras (ex
>Canons DSLR always did ISO 100 where
>Nikons best was ISO 200),

Yeah, but what do those numbers really mean?

If we take a picture of the same grey card with manual settings on both
at "ISO 200", one could have almost a stop more headroom than the other
in the RAW data. You don't know what these numbers really mean until
you test them.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><