"you don't expect it can sell very well in numbers except for big budget scientific/military/surveillance expenditure of governmental agencies - I wouldn't entirely write off affordable individuals too"
Surveillence.... they must mean watching Paris Hilton getting out of her car from 60 miles away.
DrPablo wrote:
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....Show more →
I was replying to inquiry of Nikon lenses that Canon does not have.
Canon 100 f/2.8 macro - no is. Canon 200 f/1.8L (out of production but still around) -no is Canon 200 f/2.8L (for only about $800) - no is Canon 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS -not considered "fast lens"
You're kind of stretching the boundries of this pissing match.
Pavel wrote:
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....Show more →
Don't forget the DsIII includes built-in lens focus fine-tuning adjustment. You know, kind of like early automobiles that had carburetor fuel mixture adjustments on the steering column.
AJ Nadershahi wrote:
You're kind of stretching the boundries of this pissing match.
And you're stretching the boundaries of literacy. Try reading with a little more attention to detail before splitting useless hairs.
I wrote the following:
"show a single Nikon lens that doesn't have a Canon correlate of comparable quality"
I didn't say identical specifications or features. I said comparable quality. There are Canon lenses with IS for which Nikon doesn't have a correlate either (the 17-85 IS, the 17-55 f/2.8 IS, the 24-105L IS). But I wouldn't be so concrete (or blindly brand-loyal) as to call the Nikon 18-70 a vastly inferior lens than the Canon 17-85 simply because it lacks VR.
DrPablo wrote:
And you're stretching the boundaries of literacy. Try reading with a little more attention to detail before splitting useless hairs.
I wrote the following:
"show a single Nikon lens that doesn't have a Canon correlate of comparable quality"
I didn't say identical specifications or features. I said comparable quality. There are Canon lenses with IS for which Nikon doesn't have a correlate either (the 17-85 IS, the 17-55 f/2.8 IS, the 24-105L IS). But I wouldn't be so concrete (or blindly brand-loyal) as to call the Nikon 18-70 a vastly inferior lens than the Canon 17-85 simply because it lacks VR.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Why are you taking it so personally?
I'm not taking it personally. I own Canon 35mm equipment and Nikon large format equipment, and honestly I don't care in the slightest how historians 1000 years from now look back on the digital cameras of 2007. I only participated in this thread because I crack up every time I see Ador's passionate sonnets to Nikon.
I made the point about lens comparisons because I think it's fair to say that neither Nikon nor Canon has any glaring hole in their repertoire, and they have high quality lenses throughout the spectrum. In other words, I think it's sad when people uniformly badmouth one company's optics when in reality they both provide as much of a repertoire as anyone could possibly need. What this means is that their lineups are indeed comparable in scope and comparable in quality, notwithstanding some specific differences between any two given lenses.
EB, this isn't about credibility. Its just a place to socialise and make things up. The D3 is unlikely to come out in PMA though. But then again, my credibility went out the window when I suggested they were getting fluffy dice on the viewfinder!
Nikt, quit screwing around. You know damned well that this is serious! Nikon shooters don't make things up! That would be like mother theresa stealing ... it just would ruin every wholesome image in ones mind. So straighten up!
Im a Canon shooter but im very happy for you guys finally getting full frame, not that the d2's were bad, its great having your lenses behave as intended plus a big fat sensor to pack 20 million+ pixels in. awesome
Pavel wrote:
Nikt, quit screwing around. You know damned well that this is serious! Nikon shooters don't make things up! That would be like mother theresa stealing ... it just would ruin every wholesome image in ones mind. So straighten up!
That's correct and now we're seeing holes and what were seeing ain't good ~ more like an empty can ~ noisy cuz it's empty.
Now to Canon users out there, Nikon is not just about the lenses or the cameras, it's the heritage and the current accomplishments. Now, answer this Canon users, does Canon have a camera in outer space? None. Why do Nasa continue using Nikon? They continue contracting Nikon cuz of superior quality in both camera technology and optics (Nasa only uses the best & highest reliability). Can any Canon user top that? Hmmmm...
ReyGay wrote:
Now to Canon users out there, Nikon is not just about the lenses or the cameras, it's the heritage and the current accomplishments. Now, answer this Canon users, does Canon have a camera in outer space? None. Why do Nasa continue using Nikon? They continue contracting Nikon cuz of superior quality in both camera technology and optics (Nasa only uses the best & highest reliability). Can any Canon user top that? Hmmmm...
I'd buy this new 1.1x body for landscapes and D2X for the teles.
Do you shoot a lot of photos in outer space.
I have owned half a dozen camera systems, close to 25 SLRs, plus various medium format, rangefinders, etc. and I still don't understand the brand loyalty nonsense. I prefer Nikon, but their gear is far from perfect. It is best to have both Nikon and Canon gear, and maybe some digital MF if you can justify the cost. It is like driving a car. Do you want to drive the same vehicle every day, or do you want to drive one vehicle for work, perhaps one for the night on the town, and another for off-the-beaten-path weekends?
EB-1 wrote:
It is best to have both Nikon and Canon gear, and maybe some digital MF if you can justify the cost. It is like driving a car. Do you want to drive the same vehicle every day, or do you want to drive one vehicle for work, perhaps one for the night on the town, and another for off-the-beaten-path weekends?
That opens up a whole new can of worms with spoiled and excessive consumption. But I'm certainly not about to start that topic...
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.
