adorski wrote:
sorry guys but I can't help myself but to rant here
Ador, you're a good friend of mine on these forums, so I can't help but give you a ribbing here. This is an old rant of yours that I've seen elsewhere... here, in fact... and while I appreciate your enthusiasm, do you really think that any of this enumeration is meaningful?
why is it that CSI uses Nikon Digital instead of other Brand?
you mean the TV show? uh, perhaps product placement has something to do with it...
But forensic scientists use Nikon for one reason that's entirely irrelevant to 99.999% of all Nikon posts in the internet: Nikon makes a quartz lens that transmits UV light, which makes it useful for photographing subcutaneous bruises (among other things). This lens can be yours for a mere $3000. THAT is why actual forensic scientists use Nikon.
Why do they use Nikon on the show CSI? Beats me. Do you need me to enumerate the scientific liberties they take on CSI to challenge how representative it is of real forensics?
why is it that the US Goverment uses Nikon Digital instead of other Brand?
Well, the US Government also uses Halliburton, so go figure.
also NASA used to bring Hassleblad out of this earth and I wonder why they choose Nikon to bring with them on ISS
A good friend of my wife works for JPL and has been involved in the design of the mars rovers (and is one of the project managers of the 2009 rover). I can find out if the rovers are carrying around D70s, as opposed to custom optics for scientific applications (on another planet). Point being, who cares what the astronauts are carrying around for their snapshots. DSLRs are not exactly scientific instruments used by NASA.
for the record 62 out of 82 pulitzer Price winning photograph taken from 1963 to 2004 have been captured by world class photographer using Nikon Cameras, That's more than 75% and exceeeds the total for all other brands combined
Take a look at the Pulitzer Prize-winning photos. They win the prizes because they capture extraordinary and historic moments. It is a prize given for the eye of the photographer, not for the camera. Historically Nikon was the dominant 35mm camera, and that is why those photos were shot with Nikons.
Also most of National Geographic Photographer and PhotoJournalist Photographer Prefer to shoot Nikon I don't know why? Must be that piece of glass...
And you get that from where? Lots of NG photographers use medium format. Lots use Canon.
IMHO I think Nikon Focuses in their fine Optics while the other brand focuses on the printer and copier machine...
I'll grant Nikon the 17-35 is better than the comparable lens from Canon (though we'll see how the new 16-35 does). And Nikon has that quartz UV-transmitting lens. Other than that, I'd defy you to show a single Nikon lens that doesn't have a Canon correlate of comparable quality (if not superior in some cases).
By the way, Nikon and Canon are hardly the only players in fine optics. There are a few names out there like Zeiss, Leica, Schneider, Rodenstock, Zuiko, Pentax, Fuji, and Mamiya that have a handful of world class, exceptional lenses themselves...
Go Nikon Go
Exactly... thanks for the fine reading, Ador.
BTW get rid of your 20D and 10D so you can get a real PRO Body like MARK III that you were very proud of
I'm proud of my pictures, not my camera equipment (including my Nikkor 120 f/5.6 large format macro lens).
This is really an amazing thread...........you guys are arguing over a camera that doesn't exist...........you can't even stay on topic, hence the side trips about ISO and this brand vs that brand............Is this cabin fever? Are you guys listening to yourselves?......does any of this have anything to do with making images?
I watched a DVD tonight about NG photographer Joel Santore......he talked at length about making images.....he didn't mention his equipment once. Its the images that feed his passion...not the gear.
Osai, the antagonism is coming from the other side not the gentleman that started this thread.
I guess this proves there is just about an argument or reason for everything.
The only mystery to me and the rest of the world is why such a progressive company like canon would drop the ball and release a tweener like the 5d.
Cheers,
Jasin.
I will say in everyone's defense at least this isn't 300 pages long yet. And that dvd of Joel is amazing! Besides some are posting when it's dark out, everyone knows that with Nikon's high noise problems, you can't shoot past sundown! J/K!!!!
DrPablo wrote:
I'll grant Nikon the 17-35 is better than the comparable lens from Canon (though we'll see how the new 16-35 does). And Nikon has that quartz UV-transmitting lens. Other than that, I'd defy you to show a single Nikon lens that doesn't have a Canon correlate of comparable quality (if not superior in some cases).
Just off the top of my head...
Nikon 105 f2.8 Macro vr
Nikon 200 f2 vr
Nikon 200-400 f4 vr
Nikon 1200-1700 f5.6-8 (can't recall if this one is still in production or if Nikon has stopped taking orders.)
If you compare the quality of Nikon's "consumer" grade lenses (based on price and max aperture range) to Canon's equivalent non-L series lenses, Nikon ends up looking even better.
Edited by AJ Nadershahi on Feb 28, 2007 at 11:22 PM GMT
The big question is what the market wants... Anything less than 10 mpx is a non-starter. FF is good but if not, then there has to be some incredible increase in some other imaging quality like DR or a new technology.
Ok, what about Canon's Long-fast Stabilized primes that are cheaper than their Nikon equivalents?
Or what about all their USM primes in the shorter end - which Nikon still hasn't bothered to update.
Or the 70-200f4L.
Point is both sides have good glass that the other doesn't.
AJ Nadershahi wrote:
Just off the top of my head...
Nikon 105 f2.8 Macro vr
Nikon 200 f2 vr
Nikon 200-400 f4 vr
Nikon 1200-1700 f5.6-8 (can't recall if this one is still in production or if Nikon has stopped taking orders.)
If you compare the quality of Nikon's "consumer" grade lenses (based on price and max aperture range) to Canon's equivalent non-L series lenses, Nikon ends up looking even better.
Edited by AJ Nadershahi on Feb 28, 2007 at 11:22 PM GMT
spyder57 wrote:
Ok, what about Canon's Long-fast Stabilized primes that are cheaper than their Nikon equivalents?
Or what about all their USM primes in the shorter end - which Nikon still hasn't bothered to update.
Or the 70-200f4L.
Point is both sides have good glass that the other doesn't.
DrPablo wrote:
I'll grant Nikon the 17-35 is better than the comparable lens from Canon (though we'll see how the new 16-35 does). And Nikon has that quartz UV-transmitting lens. Other than that, I'd defy you to show a single Nikon lens that doesn't have a Canon correlate of comparable quality (if not superior in some cases).
From my perspective, I'd say Nikon has enough confidence in the quality of their long zoom lenses that they are focusing their attention on zooms rather than primes.
As it stands their long "fast" telephoto offerings include;
200 f2 vr
300 f4
300 f2.8
400 f2.8
500 f4
600 f4
Canon's long "fast" telephoto lineup consists of;
200 L f2.8
300 L f4 is
300 L f2.8 is
400 L f2.8 is
400 L f4 is
500 L f4 is
600 L f4 is
So that's one extra lens in Canon's line up due to the additional 400 mm offering.
Obviously Canon trumps Nikon with more image stabilized lenses, but considering that you invariably end up using a support for these types of lenses, how important is image stabilization with these lenses? Mind you, if my long lenses included vr I certainly wouldn't complain about it! But at the same time I would most likely leave it turned off because it's frequently mounted on a tripod or gimbal.
With wider lenses I would guess that Nikon feels the quality of their wide angle zooms compares favorably with prime lenses. (The 17-35 certainly lives up to that kind of comparison.) Or maybe they feel their existing line of prime lenses is already good enough that it doen't need to be updated. How important is wide aperture capability when each generation of camera produces cleaner images at higher ISO settings?
And remember that Nikon is known to introduce or update products on a different schedule than Canon. So they may actually introduce vr telephoto lenses, but it probably won't be because of a knee jerk reaction to a competitor.
I would love to spend a few minutes with the head of their engineering to find out the true reasons. But here we are in a discussion forum hypothesizing and trying to second guess at what goes on behind their doors.
I'm done with my chores for the day and am way too tired to go out to photograph. So while images are running through their batch processes in the background, I amuse myself with senseless dribble. It certainly beats watching television.
Besides, I believe intelligent beings have been watching us for a long time and have already decided we're not worth the effort.
The intelligent beings were intelligent but not wise. They read the spec sheets and chose Canon for their observation equiptment. I mean, who in their right mind would not?
They looked at the shots. All the detail was gone from the high iso look, and the back focus didn't help the soft lenses. No life on earth - as far as they could see. Had they used Nikon, they would have been down here, drinking good beer, enjoying barbecue and wondering why our women are such mysteries. As it is, they are somewhere in the the next gallaxy - feezing their butts off - but keeping warm arguing how the new mark 3 will help find inteligent life - if only they could get the 200 f 1.8 with IS next time.
And what's more, Nikon has made it so the DX lenses are still usable on this camera.
I have used a DX lens on a Canon 5D. Works great. Once you crop off the 50% of the frame which is black. Presumably that's what you mean by "DX lenses are still usable".
AJ Nadershahi wrote:
Just off the top of my head...
Nikon 105 f2.8 Macro vr
Nikon 200 f2 vr
Nikon 200-400 f4 vr
Nikon 1200-1700 f5.6-8 (can't recall if this one is still in production or if Nikon has stopped taking orders.)
If you compare the quality of Nikon's "consumer" grade lenses (based on price and max aperture range) to Canon's equivalent non-L series lenses, Nikon ends up looking even better.
Canon 100 f/2.8 macro
Canon 200 f/1.8L (out of production but still around)
Canon 200 f/2.8L (for only about $800)
Canon 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS
Not identical to the Nikon versions, but the exact same lineup niches are filled with high quality lenses.
1200-1700 f/5.6 Well, you've got me on that one -- I'm not aware of something in that size in the Canon lineup. I'd love to see a picture of that puppy -- the rear lens element would have to be more than 8 inches in diameter.
By the way, Nikon up until this past year made large format lenses (I own one) and enlarging lenses, which Canon has not done. But we're really talking only about the 35mm format lineups here.
Avi B wrote:
Man, those fluffy dice were MY idea But I was expecting some support.
Now, I'm not so sure about the pink. Metallic blue on the other hand...
Its good to think real features are once again being discussed and I'm happy to share credit for the fluffy dice. Same thread (great minds think alike) but I beat you by a couple of posts!
nikt wrote:
Its good to think real features are once again being discussed and I'm happy to share credit for the fluffy dice. Same thread (great minds think alike) but I beat you by a couple of posts!
brainiac wrote:
I have used a DX lens on a Canon 5D. Works great. Once you crop off the 50% of the frame which is black. Presumably that's what you mean by "DX lenses are still usable".
I've used my 17-55 on a real full-frame (my FE) and after about 26mm it seems not to vignette anymore. So say from 30mm-55mm it's a perfectly useable lens. Except that you can't stop down...
DrPablo wrote:
1200-1700 f/5.6 Well, you've got me on that one -- I'm not aware of something in that size in the Canon lineup. I'd love to see a picture of that puppy -- the rear lens element would have to be more than 8 inches in diameter.
Here you go. A screen shot of the 1200-1700 from the mir.com site. More info can be found here.
Well, you've got me on that one -- I'm not aware of something in that size in the Canon lineup. I'd love to see a picture of that puppy -- the rear lens element would have to be more than 8 inches in diameter.
