Register · Software · Search · Image Upload · Buy & Sell · Reviews · Hosting

	Moderated by: guardian
	Username   Password Visit the FM Store · Image Upload · Buy & Sell FM Forum Rules Nikon SLRs, primes, and zooms lenses reviews FM Forums | Nikon-mount SLRs | Join Image Upload end

camerapapi Offline Image Upload: Off p.1 #1 · Nikon vs Canon I cannot remember if it was in this forum or Nikonians but there was a gentleman using the new Canon Rebel (I believe 8 megapixels) against the D1X, D70 and I am not sure if the D100 was also in the comparison. He was using the kit lens against excellent optics from Nikon and he was claiming that the images from the Rebel were superior to the Nikon cameras (?) He was saying he believes it has to be the megapixels (8 against 5 and 6) because when he adapted the lenses to the Canon body the images were all of the sudden spectacular (?) I am very skeptical about this because a kit lens cannot be superior to a prime. It is also hard for me to believe that 2 or 3 megapixels more can make such a huge difference. I am not saying Canon glass is not good, on the contrary, they have excellent cameras and lenses but those statements are hard to believe. I have made no comparisons though. Have any of you experienced such results? From his tests the D2H must be a disaster since it only has 4 megapixels! Very hard to believe. William Rodriguez Miami, Florida. Edited on Nov 30, 2005 at 09:09 PM Nov 28, 2005 at 09:57 PM

Dimme Offline Image Upload: Off p.1 #2 · Nikon vs Canon http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm Maybe this will clear things up.. Edited on Nov 30, 2005 at 09:09 PM Nov 28, 2005 at 10:01 PM

MPerdomo Offline Image Upload: Off p.1 #3 · Nikon vs Canon Any Canon camera shooting the 18-55 kit lens will look worse than just about any Nikon or Canon camera shooting a decent lens or prime (like the Nikon 18-70 or Canon 50mm f/1.8). I always laugh when I see people who buy a 20D and then cheap out with an 18-55 Edited on Nov 30, 2005 at 09:09 PM Nov 28, 2005 at 10:12 PM

LeifG Offline Image Upload: Off p.1 #4 · Nikon vs Canon I'm sure they are all similar. According to numerous reviews anyway. Dpreview have test images so you can download and judge. By all accounts the Nikon 18-70 kit lens is a couple of steps above the crappy Canon 18-55 kit lens. Real pros buy a Canon 1Ds Mark II with a Tamron/Sigma/Tokina 28-300 zoom so they don't miss those once in a lifetime photo opportunities. Regarding Rockwell, he's an idiot. But amusing. (Some good stuff but numerous errors/howlers and outrageous statements designed to attract attention and get takers for his $180 per hour photography lessons.) He is the sort of self proclaimed expert that epitomises all that is bad about the internet. Don't believe everything you read on the internet. BTW I saw Elvis today. He's working on a comeback. He said he's got the burger habit sorted. Down to 10 a day. Leif Edited on Nov 30, 2005 at 09:09 PM Nov 28, 2005 at 10:44 PM

SSISteve Offline Image Upload: On p.1 #5 · Nikon vs Canon What cracks me up about Rockwell is he gives you opinions on lenses, etc. that he has never tried himself. I stopped visiting his website some time ago. Edited on Nov 30, 2005 at 09:09 PM Nov 28, 2005 at 10:48 PM

GSteele Offline Image Upload: Off p.1 #6 · Nikon vs Canon I always get a chuckle out of the megapixel myths that float around, be it Nikon or Canon. Ken Rockwell is scary and a bit off center, not to say that I am any more sane the he is, but here are some of my thoughts on the subject. You can stretch or shrink the pixels so much before the interpolation starts looking bad. From my experience is that if I were to shoot strictly for web posting, I would use a sensor with around the approx 6 megapixel for a full frame capture. The reason being that you are compressing your pixel count (for let's say a 700 x 467 posting size) by a 18 to 1 while a 12 megapixel camera you are compressing by 36 to 1 and even more than that when they are converted to JPEG's. That is a whole lot of missing data from the original capture. Now the same is true for enlarging, but I find it not quite as noticeable, since we are filling in missing data and not throwing it away. I make my comment from actual usage from these different resolutions. Having a lens that can match the pixel density of a given sensor IMHO is key to getting the most out of the combination, which naturally leaves the Point and Shoots (even though their pixel count may be higher than some DSLR's) out of the running for over all quality. Again, from my experience (not scientific by any means) I get a more consistent capture from EVERY situation and lighting condition from a quality lens as compared to a lower level entry level lens. I am not saying that the entry levels lenses are not good quality, as some are quite good, I just want my lenses to perform well at every aperture without having to worry about CA, Flair, edge sharpness, etc and that is where most inexpensive or entry levels lenses start to fail. You can do a comparison based on one lens' sweat spot where it may be difficult for others to keep up with, but it will fail over the entire range and conditions if compared to a high quality lens. Quite simply, if the lens company could produce a lens profitably for $300 and it out perform their $1200 comparable lens, then they would be selling it for $1200. To me, real life photography is more complex than any single spec or series of specs. It is the combination of camera, lens and photographer that make everything work together. Edited on Nov 30, 2005 at 09:09 PM Nov 28, 2005 at 11:03 PM

Pavel Offline Image Upload: Off p.1 #7 · Nikon vs Canon Rockwell is good to read when you want to make the point about the dangers of hallucinogenic drugs. Edited on Nov 30, 2005 at 09:09 PM Nov 29, 2005 at 12:24 AM

genghis45 Offline [ X ] p.1 #8 · Nikon vs Canon camerapapi wrote: I cannot remember if it was in this forum or Nikonians but there was a gentleman using the new Canon Rebel (I believe 8 megapixels) against the D1X, D70 and I am not sure if the D100 was also in the comparison. He was using the kit lens against excellent optics from Nikon and he was claiming that the images from the Rebel were superior to the Nikon cameras (?) He was saying he believes it has to be the megapixels (8 against 5 and 6) because when he adapted the lenses to the Canon body the images were all of the sudden spectacular (?) I am very skeptical about this because a kit lens cannot be superior to a prime. It is also hard for me to believe that 2 or 3 megapixels more can make such a huge difference. I am not saying Canon glass is not good, on the contrary, they have excellent cameras and lenses but those statements are hard to believe. I have made no comparisons though. Have any of you experienced such results? From his tests the D2H must be a disaster since it only has 4 megapixels! Very hard to believe. William Rodriguez Miami, Florida. ************************************************************ I got yer Canon right heah! :-) Scott Edited on Nov 30, 2005 at 09:09 PM Nov 29, 2005 at 08:59 AM

ajacobs2 Offline Image Upload: On p.1 #9 · Nikon vs Canon Regarding Rockwell, he's an idiot. But amusing. (Some good stuff but numerous errors/howlers and outrageous statements designed to attract attention and get takers for his $180 per hour photography lessons.) He is the sort of self proclaimed expert that epitomises all that is bad about the internet. Don't believe everything you read on the internet. What cracks me up about Rockwell is he gives you opinions on lenses, etc. that he has never tried himself. I stopped visiting his website some time ago. Rockwell is good to read when you want to make the point about the dangers of hallucinogenic drugs. Yikes, such disdain for Ken Rockwell. Just short of calling him the Howard Stern of the Blogs............ I thought I was alone in my thinking about some of the things he says. Then I realized it's about hits. Ads by Google is a revenue builder, the book and finally the saturated overcooked gallery...Exactly what a retailer wants for newbies. He appeals to a certain buyer and there are more of those buyers than there are guys like us who would selll the furniture for a piece of glass. For every expensive lens sold there are, hundreds of less expensive lens's sold. Expensive, you have to think about it, inexpensive, wipe the card. He does a service to the retailers that mass market the cheaper stuff. Edited on Nov 30, 2005 at 09:09 PM Nov 29, 2005 at 03:18 PM

Pavel Offline Image Upload: Off p.1 #10 · Nikon vs Canon Hey ... how'd you know that we all sell the furniture for our glass Edited on Nov 30, 2005 at 09:09 PM Nov 29, 2005 at 03:52 PM

LeifG Offline Image Upload: Off p.1 #11 · Nikon vs Canon ajacobs2 wrote: He appeals to a certain buyer and there are more of those buyers than there are guys like us who would selll the furniture for a piece of glass. What furniture? I don't have any money spare for such luxuries. Now, I wonder how my D200 order is doing ... Leif PS I think you are right about the Rockwell business plan. I hadn't thought of it that way. Edited on Nov 30, 2005 at 09:09 PM Nov 29, 2005 at 05:20 PM

uccmmcpo Offline Image Upload: Off p.1 #12 · Nikon vs Canon ajacobs2 wrote: Regarding Rockwell, he's an idiot. But amusing. (Some good stuff but numerous errors/howlers and outrageous statements designed to attract attention and get takers for his $180 per hour photography lessons.) He is the sort of self proclaimed expert that epitomises all that is bad about the internet. Don't believe everything you read on the internet. What cracks me up about Rockwell is he gives you opinions on lenses, etc. that he has never tried himself. I stopped visiting his website some time ago. Rockwell is good to read when you want to make the point about the dangers of hallucinogenic drugs. Yikes, such disdain for Ken Rockwell. Just short of calling him the Howard Stern of the Blogs............ I thought I was alone in my thinking about some of the things he says. Then I realized it's about hits. Ads by Google is a revenue builder, the book and finally the saturated overcooked gallery...Exactly what a retailer wants for newbies. He appeals to a certain buyer and there are more of those buyers than there are guys like us who would selll the furniture for a piece of glass. For every expensive lens sold there are, hundreds of less expensive lens's sold. Expensive, you have to think about it, inexpensive, wipe the card. He does a service to the retailers that mass market the cheaper stuff. That`s exactly how I`ve always taken him. Sure he can be off the wall sometimes but his writings and recommendations are not geared for those who want more than the basics. He`s kinda simplistic in his approach to gear . Actually I think he`s an amusing person and his writings are somewhat catchy and hold you to the end. Personally, I like his style but you have to read in between the lines too. To the masses of P+S converts to DSLR he provides a very interesting entry level of reading info without bogging down in the minutia. For those who choose to call him names and belittle him , that`s their perogative but I think I understand what he`s all about. John Edited on Nov 30, 2005 at 09:09 PM Nov 29, 2005 at 09:02 PM

deapee Offline Image Upload: Off p.1 #13 · Nikon vs Canon Pavel wrote: Hey ... how'd you know that we all sell the furniture for our glass OH my goodness, that is such an awesome idea. I invested about $1700 in a living room set when my girlfriend and I got out apartment...and now she's going back for her Master's in a few months -- I wonder how much it's worth now -- it's in like-new condition. I bet I could get a 300 f4 with it...I'm going to try. Edited on Nov 30, 2005 at 09:09 PM Nov 29, 2005 at 09:23 PM

camerapapi Offline Image Upload: Off p.1 #14 · Nikon vs Canon Gentlemen: I do not believe it is fair to criticize Mr. Rockwell when he is not having the benefit of replying to those critics. I am not entirely in agreement with his statements but respect the fact that he has put long hours building his site and that today some big companies sponsor him. The purpose of my thread was to gather your opinions against those of the gentleman who claims that a Rebel with a kit lens was superior (image wise) to Nikon bodies with their best lenses, simply because the Rebel had 8 megapixels. I cannot believe, as a matter of fact I refuse to believe that a couple of megapixels make such a big difference. I have no Canon gear to make comparisons nor I do comparisons. Each photographer should use what he or she thinks is best for his or her own style of photography. Cameras and lenses are tools and you should go with the system that makes you comfortable. In my humble opinion both system are very capable of producing excellent results. My son has a Panasonic point and shoot with 2 megapixels. The camera sports an Ernst Leitz lens. I took pictures of my grandson with that camera and just for fun I decided to enlarge to 12x18. To my surprise, all details of the original were there. That was really a big surprise for me. I never expected a 2 megapixels camera to do so well! I believe good software and a quality lens make all of the difference in this world when sound photographic techniques are used. Those 4 megapixels of the D2H must be very good because the camera is very capable of beautiful enlargements. On the other hand, I do not own the D2X but I have heard the 12 megapixels of that camera are also very capable indeed. I use the D100 and I simply believe it shines when RAW is used with a good optic. I do not use RAW often, instead I use fine-large JPEGs and I am very happy with the results when sharpness is not applied in-camera. I tend to agree with Mr. Rockwell when he talks about the "megapixels myth." A professional camera with 5 megapixels and good software can go a long way, especially when used with a professional lens. Thank you kindly to all of you who took time to answer my thread. William Rodriguez Miami, Florida. Edited on Nov 30, 2005 at 09:09 PM Nov 30, 2005 at 03:32 AM

rsg_1 Offline Image Upload: On p.1 #15 · Nikon vs Canon With sales of DSLRs zooming up and the room to make considerable profits, I suspect Nikon will take a page from Canon and introduce newer models more rapidly. Maybe not the 18 month product cycle of Canon, but certainly faster than what has been done in the recent past. The D200 is going to be a killer DSLR and Nikon will soon realize it in terms of sales. At my local camera shop, the waiting list for the D200 is growing and a few people are ready to switch over to Nikon. I see this as a positive development that will put downward pressure on the prices of all DSLRs. Edited on Nov 30, 2005 at 09:09 PM Nov 30, 2005 at 05:37 AM

genghis45 Offline [ X ] p.1 #16 · Nikon vs Canon I like what Rockwell has to say, even if I don't agree with all of it. The reason that he evinces such strong opinions---many on the negative side of the ledger---is because he is controversial. Most lightning rods who write, will have their detractors, many of whom will just plain dislike him for having strong opinions. I have found some very useful information on his site. For example, his review of the 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G Zoom-Nikkor, along with Thom Hogan's review of this lens---is what convinced me of the lens' virtuosity. D1x with 24-85mm Zoom-Nikkor. Picture Title: "Marie Antoinette Syndrom" Scott Wong http://www.pbase.com/genghis http://members.tripod.com/ih71/index.html1 Edited on Nov 30, 2005 at 09:09 PM Nov 30, 2005 at 10:45 AM

genghis45 Offline [ X ] p.1 #17 · Nikon vs Canon P.S. Just an aside. I have some personal experience with enmity toward writers. When I wrote controversial subject matter for Iron Horse, Black Belt, Karate-Kung Fu, Martial Arts Training and Kung Fu Magazines, I received fight challenges, death threats and even bullets in the mail... Scott Edited on Nov 30, 2005 at 09:09 PM Nov 30, 2005 at 10:48 AM

uccmmcpo Offline Image Upload: Off p.1 #18 · Nikon vs Canon genghis45 wrote: P.S. Just an aside. I have some personal experience with enmity toward writers. When I wrote controversial subject matter for Iron Horse, Black Belt, Karate-Kung Fu, Martial Arts Training and Kung Fu Magazines, I received fight challenges, death threats and even bullets in the mail... Scott Hi Scott, I`m glad to see that I`m not the only one who has enjoyed Ken`s writings. I think over all he provides a reasonably good service especially to the uninitiated.. His style simply has to be readily apparent and rather obvious after reading a couple para`s. John Edited on Nov 30, 2005 at 09:09 PM Nov 30, 2005 at 12:41 PM

manoj1016 Offline Image Upload: On p.1 #19 · Nikon vs Canon I tend to agree in the it is just a review and it is up to the reader determine the value of the review and be done with it Manoj Edited on Nov 30, 2005 at 09:09 PM Nov 30, 2005 at 01:18 PM

DavidPereira Offline Image Upload: Off p.1 #20 · Nikon vs Canon Personal story: I walked into my local shop to pickup a SB600(Boy that’s complicated piece of equipment)… and as I walk in one of the guys asked me to pick the best of two 8.5x11 printed images. One taken with a 4MP camera and one with a 8MP camera (the subject being a fire hydrant (NO NOT the brick wall) using the a similar late model Sigma 50mm lens… I was told both the images where taken by the same person at the same settings and the same time. No post processing was done… Direct printed from card using the same printer and same paper type. … While I could tell one clearly was better then the other but I was hesitant to pick after all most of the people at the shop shoot Canon and sometimes joke with me regarding Nikon so naturally I was reluctant to answer… Anyway after some persuasion I finally picked the one which IMO had the best color/sharper / better contrast and better over all detail (the one that had catch my eye the instance I say it). Sales person: “Yep that’s the 4MP image you picked….” Me: “What? It is!!! I did!!!! NO!!! Are you sure? Boy I ‘m confused!!!!” !!!!Laughter!!!! Sales person: “Yes that’s what we thought too” … “Everyone we asked so far has picked the same one”… “That’s from a D2H the other is from a 20D. We where blown away by it just as much as you are!!!” But like most people even today I sill have a hard time comprehending it… How could it be! This is simple math 8 is more the 4 (twice as much) or is it? BTW when I was asked a question I knew it had to be a NIKON vs CANON thing... and I was pretty sure I would be picking the CANON Edited on Nov 30, 2005 at 09:09 PM Nov 30, 2005 at 02:02 PM

Tom Conte Offline Image Upload: On p.1 #21 · Nikon vs Canon David, I think the camera shop owner has to learn to use USM in PS. That being said, my old images from a 1D (mark I) would blow away images I had from the 20D. I decided that the 1D was a 4mp camera operating like a 6mp one, and the 20D was an 8mp camera operating like a 6mp one. One frustration I've had with Canon is their "softening" of the out-of-camera images over time. The earlier models had good color and punch out of camera, such as the D30, the D60 (which still has a cult following), the 1D mark I and the 1Ds mark I. The later cameras produce flat images that need a lot of punch in PS. That adds to my workflow and is rather annoying. Tom Edited on Nov 30, 2005 at 09:09 PM Nov 30, 2005 at 02:45 PM

rsg_1 Offline Image Upload: On p.1 #22 · Nikon vs Canon David, If the 20D firmware was prior to version 2.0.0, it is possible that the particular 20D used could have had some focus issues with it. Canon is pretty good about issuing new firmware. Edited on Nov 30, 2005 at 09:09 PM Nov 30, 2005 at 06:50 PM

DavidPereira Offline Image Upload: Off p.1 #23 · Nikon vs Canon Tom Conte wrote: David, I think the camera shop owner has to learn to use USM in PS. That being said, my old images from a 1D (mark I) would blow away images I had from the 20D. I decided that the 1D was a 4mp camera operating like a 6mp one, and the 20D was an 8mp camera operating like a 6mp one. One frustration I've had with Canon is their "softening" of the out-of-camera images over time. The earlier models had good color and punch out of camera, such as the D30, the D60 (which still has a cult following), the 1D mark I and the 1Ds mark I. The later cameras produce flat images that need a lot of punch in PS. That adds to my workflow and is rather annoying. Tom Tom the post processing was skipped on purpose (they had turned off all the in Camera processing as much as possible). Most there still believed the 8MP image would hold better in larger prints. Nov 30, 2005 at 09:09 PM

	FM Forums | Nikon-mount SLRs | Join Image Upload end

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password   Lost password?