Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
  

Archive 2008 · Mike Johnston on Sony vs. Nikon vs. Canon
  
 
Tom K.
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · Mike Johnston on Sony vs. Nikon vs. Canon


Mike Johnston gives us his comparisons of the A900 vs. the D3/D700 vs. the 5D Mark II.

A very interesting read: CLICK HERE FOR REVIEWS



Dec 18, 2008 at 07:35 AM
tonyhart
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · Mike Johnston on Sony vs. Nikon vs. Canon


I skimmed this article, but isn't he getting suckered into the 100% crops thing?


Dec 18, 2008 at 10:43 AM
brainiac
Offline
• • • • •
Account locked
p.1 #3 · Mike Johnston on Sony vs. Nikon vs. Canon


It feels like the article might have been written by just examining the specs of the cameras. I really don't trust his appraisal of their results.


Dec 18, 2008 at 12:34 PM
kidtexas
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · Mike Johnston on Sony vs. Nikon vs. Canon


I don't really get his conclusions either. The Sony and the Nikon are 'game changers' (for different reasons). Responsible for paradigm shifts. I'm not going to argue with that one way or another, that's not my point. He then goes on to say that the Canon gives you the "lion's share" of BOTH of the other cameras, but then finally says its just more of the same, but a bit better. Following his logic, that should be the real game changer... Gives you most of what *two* 'game-changing' cameras give you.

They all sound like good cameras, and all of them *are* just more of the same, but better. The D700 seems like a great buy because of its high image quality (good enough for most) and nice pro-level build. Of course, if you have a lot of Canon lenses, the 5D is the obvious choice...

To be honest though, he goes on a lot about how much he misses Tri-X and how much he wants a small high quality P&S, in the vein of a Ricoh GR1. Seems to me we have that technology now - buy a GR1 and shoot Tri-X. I read him but don't find his opinions all that valuable...



Dec 18, 2008 at 03:12 PM
Tom K.
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · Mike Johnston on Sony vs. Nikon vs. Canon


Johnston is very well respected in the photography world.


Dec 19, 2008 at 02:33 AM
Maggot
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · Mike Johnston on Sony vs. Nikon vs. Canon


Couldn't disagree with him more and I could care less if he's a well respected photographer.


Dec 19, 2008 at 03:05 AM
thw2
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · Mike Johnston on Sony vs. Nikon vs. Canon


Tom K. wrote:
Johnston is very well respected in the photography world.


Ha, ha.

This is the same guy who once bashed Canon's full frame offerings when there was no D3/D700/A900. Now, why will someone who used to bash the FF system suddenly become interested in comparing THREE FF cameras? This is what he used to say:

"Nikon, meanwhile, with the introduction of its professional über-kamera the D2x, has shown its firm allegiance to the APS-size sensor that gives a 1.5X effective crop. Its digital "format" is uniform, from the entry-level D70 to the D2's (yes, there's the choice of a further crop with the D2x, but that doesn't count because the whole sensor is still 1.5X). Nikon has also quietly begun building up a collection of its DX lenses, made expressly for its digital format.

Not to beat around the bush: I firmly believe that what Nikon is doing will prove to be smarter in the long run.

The path Canon is taking gives it an advantage right now, because so many photographers want, or think they want, "full frame" (i.e., 35mm-sized) sensors, so they can use their old 35mm lenses on their DSLRs. I've opined before that this is "oldthink," and I still think so. What sensor development up till now has firmly demonstrated is that sensors are getting exponentially better as time passes. Right now, in my opinion, we're beginning to enter the stretch of time when the "enough is enough" influence will begin to kick in. That is, in five or six years, we're going to know approximately what the market demands in terms of ultimate pixel size from a DSLR-type camera. And we're also going to have a pretty good idea of what it doesn't demand."

.... Mike Johnson

Sorry, Mike Johnson is no different from Ken Rockwell, the mother of all BS.



Dec 19, 2008 at 03:53 AM
Clovermead
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · Mike Johnston on Sony vs. Nikon vs. Canon


thw, there is a world of difference between Mike Johnston and Ken Rockwell. The material you posted above doesn't really demonstrate Canon bashing either. Just an opinion on the development of digital photography at a particular point in time. A long time ago too. Things change. The guy enjoys the art of photography and offers his opinions based upon how he uses the tools. There is nothing wrong with that. He's also humble writer who goes out of his way to say that nothing he writes is definitive, just his opinion based on his own experience. The Online Photographer is an excellent site and I certainly don't need to agree with everything he writes to appreciate his perspective, which is often refreshing.


Dec 19, 2008 at 04:26 AM
RalphJ
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · Mike Johnston on Sony vs. Nikon vs. Canon


Clovermead wrote:
thw, there is a world of difference between Mike Johnston and Ken Rockwell. The Online Photographer is an excellent site and I certainly don't need to agree with everything he writes to appreciate his perspective, which is often refreshing.


Hear, hear.

Fashionable though it is here to write off anyone who's ever said a negative word about Canon, Johnston in his thoughtfulness and rigor is pretty much the opposite of Ken Rockwell. In fact, perhaps the best antidote to an overdose of Rockwell would be some considered reading of Johnston's very thoughtful and frequently provocative blog (http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/blog_index.html). It has an influential (NG eds and NG photogs, for example) and varied international readership that is not larger than it is only because it focuses on photography instead of merely on gear and demands a certain level of intelligence from its readers.

Mike Johnston was editor of perhaps the most-respected photo magazine published in the US (Photo Techniques) and he is the person most responsible for introducing (in the 1990s) to the west to a factor now discussed as a matter of routine even in this forum: bokeh. (Go ahead: Try to find references anywhere in the US to bokeh before Johnston published an article on it in early 1997.)

After you've exhausted the archives of TOP (linked above), check out the columns Johnston wrote for Reichmann's Luminous-Landscape site. Some are dated and/or have wrong prognostications (as cited above) but most of them "wear" quite well, certainly better than a lot of other online photographic commentary from the early part of this decade:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sunday1.shtml
(an index to his LL columns; worth bookmarking after you've read the past couple of years of TOP blogposts linked above)

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-04-04-04.shtml
(Johnston's LL column on bokeh)

P.S. Johnston's riposte to a reader who accused him of anti-Canon bias - found in the Comments of the blogpost linked at the top of this thread - is absolutely priceless.






Dec 19, 2008 at 05:09 AM
Tom K.
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · Mike Johnston on Sony vs. Nikon vs. Canon


Johnston also wrote the infamous "The Case Against Zooms". Classic little article that bucked the zoom trend: http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/the-case-against-zooms.html


Dec 19, 2008 at 05:36 AM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



James R
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #11 · Mike Johnston on Sony vs. Nikon vs. Canon


Guess the comparison game will only end when there is but one camera company. Given the current economic conditions we could all be shooting a Holga.


Dec 19, 2008 at 05:41 AM
thw2
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #12 · Mike Johnston on Sony vs. Nikon vs. Canon


Wow, I didn't realize Mike Johnston was the guy who introduced the concept of bokeh to the west! OK, maybe I got overboard when I compared him to Ken Rockwell. But as any normal human, he has his personal opinions and prejudices. And we can always agree to disagree.


Dec 19, 2008 at 06:31 AM
Lance Couture
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #13 · Mike Johnston on Sony vs. Nikon vs. Canon


thw2 wrote:
Sorry, Mike Johnson is no different from Ken Rockwell, the mother of all BS.


I'm curious as to why so many people here decry Ken Rockwell?

I've only visited his site a few times, and never given anything there more than a cursory glance, but from what I have seen, its no worse than anything other site which offers a single point of view...



Dec 19, 2008 at 06:49 AM
Dawei Ye
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #14 · Mike Johnston on Sony vs. Nikon vs. Canon


Yes it's very strange, Ken Rockwell sometimes writes something which I disagree with, or he makes a broad statement that is a bit of a generalisation...but the amount of disrespect and ridicule shown to him is incredibly high


Dec 19, 2008 at 11:25 AM
nikt
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #15 · Mike Johnston on Sony vs. Nikon vs. Canon


Why do people dislike Ken Rockwell before they've even reading any of his stuff?





.... saves time.



Dec 19, 2008 at 01:00 PM
Andi Dietrich
Offline
• • • •
Account locked
p.1 #16 · Mike Johnston on Sony vs. Nikon vs. Canon


brainiac wrote:
It feels like the article might have been written by just examining the specs of the cameras. I really don't trust his appraisal of their results.


To me it looks like he knew already what he wanted to say before he read the specs



Dec 19, 2008 at 01:16 PM
Kevin M
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #17 · Mike Johnston on Sony vs. Nikon vs. Canon


Mike Johnston is one of the best photography journalists out there. Always informative, never dogmatic and frequently highly entertaining.

Here's one that had me chuckling a couple of years back....
http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/2006/06/great-photographers-on-internet.html



Dec 19, 2008 at 01:34 PM
RalphJ
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #18 · Mike Johnston on Sony vs. Nikon vs. Canon


Yes, that is one of the all-time "best pieces on photography" published on the Web.


Dec 19, 2008 at 01:36 PM
Andi Dietrich
Offline
• • • •
Account locked
p.1 #19 · Mike Johnston on Sony vs. Nikon vs. Canon


Pulitzer Prize


Dec 19, 2008 at 01:47 PM
ChrisDM
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #20 · Mike Johnston on Sony vs. Nikon vs. Canon


Dawei Ye wrote:
Yes it's very strange, Ken Rockwell sometimes writes something which I disagree with, or he makes a broad statement that is a bit of a generalisation...but the amount of disrespect and ridicule shown to him is incredibly high


No, the amount of ridicule he earns he earns every inch of it. For example: Take the sRAW file. This is a format which is extremely useful to me because I often shoot real estate for online listings of homes, photos which are going to be displayed at 700 pixels wide. So, 21 megapixels is overkill for these gigs. Hell, 2 megapixels is overkill... But due to the severe mixed lighting challenge (tungsten mixed with sunlight) I absolutely need complete control over color editing in post process. So of course sRAW is ideal, especially considering that I may sometimes need to shoot, process and deliver 8 or 9 properties in a couple days. So of course sRAW is a fantastic feature for such professional work, adding efficiency to my workflow in these "quantity over quality" type shooing situations.

But here's what narrow-minded Ken Rockwell went on to say about it, going into great detail to imply personal insults to any professional photographer like me who would find sRAW useful:


"You'd have to be a real idiot to care about smaller pixel size raw files... Sadly, Canon lets idiots be idiots and use these settings even in the Basic Zone dummy settings...

To keep my hate mail files manageable, I will add that these sRAW formats exist not for photographers, but for computer nerds who prefer jacking around on their computers to getting outdoors and actually photographing. "

- Ken Rockwell



How sad is that? Who's the idiot? At least now you guys that don't know him well won't have to wonder why he's gotten the reputation he does by people "in the know" in the business. He's simply lost all respect with such lack of perspective. He simply can't see anybody not thinking and shooting exactly like he does. I think this is some bad case of "photographic narcissism", which is made worse with his then insulting tones and innuendos.

Chris Miller
www.imagineimagery.com




Dec 19, 2008 at 01:47 PM
1
       2       end




FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Retrive password