Nikon reviews?

[JamesG]

Am I missing something here?

[JamesG]

Perhaps you have at last given up on the wait for Canon full-frame 1Ds, like I virtually have done. Still i'm stunned

[TucsonTRD]

Am I missing something here?
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





I must be, I don't know what you are referring to...

[JamesG]

It's not hard mate

[TucsonTRD]

It's not hard mate
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





Thanks for clearing that up???


Edit:


I seem to believe that you are in dismay that Nikon lenses are now going to be reviewed. I don't see what would have been difficult to state there.

[lynx0069]

maybe bryan is adding nikon lens reviews to the site for people that may be considering buying the converter that is available to mount nikon lenses to canon bodies......or perhaps he feels that since he has reviews for sigma, tamron, and zeiss lenses, why not add nikon lenses.......after all, nikon is canons biggest competetor (or are they?? think canikon [:P]) regardless of why bryan is adding nikon lens reviews, i look forward to reading them when he gets the reviews done.........i have always shot canon, ever since school way back in the day, but i am always reading up on nikon to see what they are bringing out. i am on nikon rumours site as much as i am on canon rumours site.


as to why bryan is adding nikon lens reviews......guess you'll have to ask him to enlighten us


jim

[clemmb]

Am I missing something here?
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





I must be, I don't know what you are referring to...
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.24.67/Website.jpg

[TucsonTRD]

Am I missing something here?
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





I must be, I don't know what you are referring to...
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.24.67/Website.jpg
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





Thanks for the pretty screen shot with the circle around the title. At the time, my question was what about Nikon reviews?


Should this site have had them already, should the site never get them, should the site never mention the name Nikon.


What exactly does "Nikon reviews?" mean? Seemed like an innocent question of not understanding the OP. I guess now I know the universal meaning of Nikon reviews?

[clemmb]

Am I missing something here?
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





I must be, I don't know what you are referring to...
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>






<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





Thanks for the pretty screen shot with the circle around the title. At the time, my question was what about Nikon reviews?


Should this site have had them already, should the site never get them, should the site never mention the name Nikon.


What exactly does "Nikon reviews?" mean? Seemed like an innocent question of not understanding the OP. I guess now I know the universal meaning of Nikon reviews?
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





I saw this appear just today so I assumed that is what your question was.


I would love to see Nikon reviews here but not at the expense of the speed and quality of the canon reviews.


Mark

[Keith B]

Natural progression in order to double ones revenue.


Surprised it took this long. Good for him.

[Jarhead5811]

Why not? What's the big deal?

[Sinh Nhut Nguyen]

Bryan plans to review Nikon lenses and DSLRs, I think this is great because it widens the playing field.

[Keith B]

I like it.


Looking at the ISO Charts, I feel really good about being a Canon shooter. Especially when it comes to primes.

[Sinh Nhut Nguyen]

I just looked at the ISO Charts for superteles, one thing I notice that the 300 f/2.8 VR300 f/2.8 VRII and the 400 f/2.8 VR are very soft wide open compare to the Canon counterparts. I think there's something wrong there, what do you think Bryan

[wickerprints]

My only concern with regard to including Nikon equipment reviews on TDP is the increased potential for certain people to post vitriolic missives against one brand or the other. When the site was Canon-only, there was an implicit understanding that such comparisons between Canon and Nikon were not on-topic.


Now let me be absolutely clear that I welcome Bryan's ISO charts and I think that more data is always a good thing. I just feel that the level of bias against either brand is so strong, and the consistent lack of maturity among many self-professed "photographers" who use the excuse that the choice of brand actually matters when it comes to the quality of the image, rather than their own skill and vision, threatens to pollute what has been a largely civil forum.


These days, I'm finding it quite difficult to spend any of my time reading online photo forums, as the evidence keeps mounting that there are an extraordinary number of people whose stupidity is exceeded only by their wealth. Too much money in their wallets and too little education is a volatile combination, and I would hate to see them defile this forum like dogs marking their territory.


Now that I've made my position known, let's talk about the actual test charts. I suspect that the 300/2.8 VR II results must be skewed or something, because the VR I performed much better--so I wonder if it has to do with a bad copy or some other issue. Something else I have noticed (and anyone else who has looked, surely has seen it too) is the very consistent reddish shift on nearly every single Nikon lens shot wide open. What is especially strange is that it diminishes when stopped down, so it cannot be purely caused by the sensor or Nikon's processing. Maybe Bryan can help shed some light on this phenomenon.


One last footnote--seeing the 14-24/2.8 results was quite literally jaw-dropping. Wow.

[JamesG]

^this, our camera systems are not football teams. I am not a "Canon fanboy," for the sake of using a Canon camera; they are at the end of the day just that, cameras and bits of glass I have spent a great deal of money on.


I posted the above out of genuine surprise if truth be known. Whilst I can sort of see why Bryan might be now including Nikon products as part of his website's appeal; by stating his preferred operating system is Canon is never going to shake future stigma of a pro-Canon stance with his reviews; however generous and honest they may be. This being the internet, people who have plonked their photographic investment elsewhere simply won't trust his reviews to be honest and accurate. This website already is viewed with deep suspicion by lots of people on the internet who simply can't except he is independent of Canon; and now he has revealed he owns a pair of D3 bodies and every Nikon lens on the page; how deep are his pockets and simply why? If I owned all the best Canon glass I could hope to own and had the means to buy even more gear of my hobby, I would aim upwards, not for glass and bodies so similar it would simply render the shelf space pointless.


Just for the record, I am not being antagonistic or argumentative! I am simply puzzled. My humble apologies if I seemed crass yesterday. I have actually had a personal replies from him to emails, so ultimately don't really doubt the guy; i'm just wondering what is the point for the reasons above.


[:)]









<div>



</div>

[neuroanatomist]

This being the internet, people who have plonked their photographic investment elsewhere simply won't trust his reviews to be honest and accurate.


Two words. Ken. Rockwell.


'Nuf said.

[peety3]

It's not hard mate
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





Yes, it is. Brevity is one thing, but being so absent in your commentary is disruptive to the boards here.


Amongst other things, I'm not in front of a PC where I've configured RSS to follow anything. As a result, I hadn't seen the "news" posting that Bryan was beginning to post Nikon information. Just to understand what you were after, I took the time to go check. So, congratulations, you gave me the run-around when you could have made your point clearer from the word go.

[JamesG]

I think I agree with that; Ken has to be the biggest plonker on the internet when it comes to photography; and obviously has figured how to make quite healthy living from his website; but his delivery is as shambolic as it is like reading a red-top newspaper. This place has always seemed much more detailed and focused than 'camera-god' Ken's slightly random views and opinions. The last time I visited his website he was ranting about boycotting some Nikon 1D camera because it was 'to expensive,' whilst at the same time stating some Leica was the best digital camera in the world. The guy clearly has issues :)

[Jarhead5811]

I for one look forward to reading Bryan's reviews to see just what he thinks of brand "N". I imagine it was a bussiness decision. Besides, wouldn't you love to play with all of that gear? Is he gonna change the Canon News tab to photography news?

[Jon Ruyle]

Awesome. That must have been a ton of work. Cool to be able to compare, say, Nikon's 135 f/2 to Canon's (though, of course, we necessarily get different resolutions, still...)

[JamesG]

Do you not find this statement a bit odd: "Even though I have all of the Nikon lenses and a pair of D3x bodies (all purchased retail - no assistance from Nikon - same as Canon) at my disposal, my personal preference remains Canon, and I will continue to make reviews of new Canon gear my top priority.



But, if I was forced to change brands"


Hahaha Change brands!!!! You already own all of it mate! No change there! :)

[peety3]

Perhaps you have at last given up on the wait for Canon full-frame 1Ds, like I virtually have done. Still i'm stunned
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





What wait? Canon released the 1Ds in the spring of 2003. They're refreshed it twice since then. Another refresh is most likely due out soon, but so what? There are plenty of great cameras from Canon, as well as other brands.

[bob williams]

Well, After reading all of this, I have come to the conclusion that this might be a mistake for Byan and TDP. I have enjoyed the civility of this forum for about two years now. Well, after reading this post, I guess civility has gone out the window. Though I would love to hear Bryan's comments and evaluations of Nikon gear, it isn't worth it to me to read through all of the immature, mindless rhetoric that goes with those otherwise insightful reviews.


One thing I did notice was that none of the "veteran" posters of this forum were rude or obnoxious---it seems to be only a couple of "newbies" that has brought this thread down to pathetic levels of posturing.





Bob

[Jarhead5811]

I'll never be able to get the latest greatest body. So, for me this photography thing is all about glass and lights. I'll never change brands because I have too much invested in a hobby that, for me will likely never support itself. It's silly to argue about differences in bodies. If one isreally that much better the other will be force to capitulate. Now, if you want to fuss about Canon needing to come out with an answer to the Nikon 200-400mm f/4G AF-S VR II Lens ("/Reviews/Nikon-200-400mm-f-4G-AF-S-VR-II-Lens-Review.aspx)I'd have to <span style="text-decoration: line-through;"]agree(Never mind just saw the price!)...


But, watch your tone (real orperceived) as we are a happy, civilized, friendly group here and don't want to loose that.

[wickerprints]

Just for the record, I am not being antagonistic or argumentative! I am simply puzzled. My humble apologies if I seemed crass yesterday. I have actually had a personal replies from him to emails, so ultimately don't really doubt the guy; i'm just wondering what is the point for the reasons above.
<div>
</div>


Since it seems to be lost upon you, I feel it necessary to point out the specific behavior that left some people with a bad taste in their mouth. In particular:

You are a new poster, with all or nearly all of your posts belonging to this thread, which you started.
Your choice of thread title is vague and your initial post in this thread did not explain what your question was.
Your subsequent posts were similarly short and failed to explain why you started the thread and what exactly you are seeking to communicate.



It is generally the case that the above points are associated with internet trolls or otherwise uncivil or inappropriate behavior. If you are sincere about your intent to contribute positively to this forum, I strongly suggest that in the future, you communicate clearly and effectively. I'm not saying you have to write a novel for each post, but five-word posts are, to put it bluntly, LAME and USELESS.


Could it really have been that difficult for you to simply write, "I noticed that this site plans/is planning to publish reviews of Nikon equipment. I am wondering whether this is a good idea. What are your thoughts?" You could probably even pare that down to "Nikon reviews: good idea? Your thoughts?" Six words, and I still managed to say more than "Am I missing something here?"


And for what it's worth there have been previous trolls and other arrogant/annoying jerks that have contaminated this forum, small as it may be. But because this place isn't POTN, FM, photo.net, DPR, or any of the other multitudes of giant forum sites, and caters specifically to Canon shooters, they don't last long around here.

[JamesG]

*Sigh*


Guess i'll leave it then. I'm a bit old to waste my time being a 'troll,' and being branded one for quite a harmless question stretches my patience to be bothered to be honest. See ya [:)]

[neuroanatomist]

This website already is viewed with deep suspicion by lots of people on the internet who simply can't except he is independent of Canon; and now he has revealed he owns a pair of D3 bodies and every Nikon lens on the page; how deep are his pockets and simply why?


Deep suspicion? I haven't run across that... But then, 'lots of people' wear tinfoil hats to prevent aliens or the government from leeching away their thoughts. I bet some of the foil hat wearers even surf the internet. [:P]


The depth of Bryan's pockets isn't really our business - except in that he is able to provide detailed reviews and testing of lots and lots of gear so we certainly benefit from that. In the interest of fairness, I should point out that you are inferring/assuming he owns the the Nikon gear. What he actually states in his news item is, "I frequently get asked questions about Nikon gear - and have friends who use Nikon....Even though I have all of the Nikon lenses and a pair of D3x bodies...at my disposal..." I have friends and colleagues who have gear that I don't have, and who would certainly lend that gear to me if I asked. So, in that sense I could consider Nikon gear, Olympus gear, and additional Canon gear to be 'at my disposal' (and all purchased retail - just not by me). So, maybe he owns them, maybe he doesn't, but regardless, it's irrelevant.



I'm a bit old to waste my time being a 'troll,' and being branded one for quite a harmless question stretches my patience


I don't think this is a trollish topic, but wickerprints nailed it with point #2 - "Your choice of thread title is vague and your initial post in this thread did not explain what your question was." I, too, was confused by that, and your second post seemed like a complete non-sequiteur, especially since the 1Ds is now on it's 3rd version. Reading several posts down the thread as others tried to clarify did not really clear anything up. Frankly, it was muddied further by Mark (clemmb) posting a screenshot of this very thread with the title highlighted - that bit of circular logic left me still thinking that the only reference to Nikon reviews on this site was yourambiguous posting, until like peety3, I did a little digging.


Commenting further on the issue of Nikon reviews here, I've got conflicting views on that. Bryan's reasons as he stated them make sense, certainly, and I'm always in favor of objective testing and reliable subjective interpretations of quality. Additional revenues for the site will also be a benefit to everyone. I'm glad he's committed to prioritizing Canon reviews, though. I can see a potential downside to people who benefit from his reviews of Tamron/Sigma/etc. lenses, as his priority order may be Canon &gt; Nikon &gt; 3rd party.


I share Bob's concern about the potential for rancor here, and I hope we can avoid that. Ultimately the tone of these forums is up to us - all of us. We could go toe-to-toe and try bashing each other over the heads with EF 600mm f/4L IS USM vs.600mm f/4G ED AF-S VR lenses(and thanks to the new specification comparisons ("http://www.The-Digital-Picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Specifications.aspx?LensComp=654&amp;Lens=336&amp;Units=E) , we know that Canon's 600mm lens is bigger and heavier)...but, let's not.

[nmurray22]

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"]<span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: small;"]I agree, wow, the enormous amount of work it must have taken to get all the Nikkor/Nikon Specifications, Vignetting and ICO Crops on here is very much appreciated Bryan. This is just such a valuable resource to all of us that take Photography seriously. While I am a Canon only user, so many of my friends use Nikon and look to me for advice on their lens&rsquo;s which I have been uncomfortable to give <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"]because there has been no consistency in any of the other Nikon review sites.
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"]<span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: small;"]This has now changed and I look forward to recommending your site to all my Nikon user friends.
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"]<span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: small;"]Thank you Bryan!

[Daniel Browning]

I love having the Nikon information, this is great!

[Sheiky]

I love having the Nikon information, this is great!






If anyone posts a photo shot with a Nikon I will say it's bad!

[Sheiky]

Just joking of course [:P]

[Keith B]

I love having the Nikon information, this is great!






If anyone posts a photo shot with a Nikon I will say it's bad!









NICE!


I commented earlier on this, but I am really surprised at the ISO Charts. I've always heard that Canon was the way to go if you shoot primes but I am surprised at the less than great results for most Nikon lenses with the exception of the 12-24. It is mind boggling.


EDIT:


Nikon 24-70 looks really good too.

[malfunctions]

Good morning! As a relative newbie and perhaps at some risk at not fully understanding all of the nuances of this forum, I would just like to add some of my experiences to this thread. I actually quite like to try to understand the world of photography and the transfer of the photographed image into something that I appreciate and maybe others will to. To that end whether it is nikon, olympus, pentax no matter. Medium format, rangefinder, pin hole. I have used leica in photomicroscopy, hasselblad for portraits, disposable underwater cameras.... All different purposes and different variations. Best of all though is that by understanding a little of this and with a view to the next photo opportunity, even though I am a heavy canon user, I can still find interest and discussion with all other systems and try to find the best way of conveying my photographic message. Better still, when I am clearly a canon user, a delighted nikon person will come up to me every now and again and ask for me to photograph them using their gear.... It helps to now how to turn a nikon on and focus! Perhaps I am just a jack of all trades and a master of none but any camera will give you a reason to immerse yourself in any number of exciting, challenging, reflective, peaceful settings. Enjoy the moment. I enjoy reading and learning about Nikon gear as much as anything.

[Dave Johnston]

If anyone posts a photo shot with a Nikon I will say it's bad!


This made me giggle.... thanks... I wasn't having a terrific day, and it helped.

[wickerprints]

NICE!


I commented earlier on this, but I am really surprised at the ISO Charts. I've always heard that Canon was the way to go if you shoot primes but I am surprised at the less than great results for most Nikon lenses with the exception of the 12-24. It is mind boggling.


EDIT:


Nikon 24-70 looks really good too.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





I too have been rather surprised by the test chart results. Aside from the aforementioned reddish/magenta color cast I see in many of the Nikon results wide open, I have noticed a few other trends:

Nikon lenses (for FX format) are generally more optimized for better corner performance than Canon lenses.
Most Nikon primes do not outperform their respective Canon counterparts wide open.
Transverse/lateral CA is much less apparent in Nikon lenses in general.
When stopped down about 1-2 stops smaller than max aperture, most Nikon lenses are extremely sharp in the center.
Comparable AF-S designs are lacking.



Regarding the last point specifically, we see that there are no Nikon offerings comparable to the following Canon designs:

EF 35/1.4L USM

EF 50/1.2L USM
EF 85/1.2L II USM
EF 135/2L USM
EF 400/5.6L USM
EF 800/5.6L IS USM



Indeed, I feel like the absence of these designs in the Nikon lineup is a significant disadvantage with respect to prime lens photography. The one caveat I must point out is that the Nikon 50/1.4D AF is a superior lens to the EF 50/1.2L and EF 50/1.4 in terms of overall sharpness. If anything, I would say that the existence of certain zooms (14-24/2.8, 200-400/4 VR) with no Canon counterpart means Nikon would be a better choice for zoom shooters--the exact opposite conclusion.


Truly, it can't be denied that Nikon's relatively late adoption of ultrasonic motor technology and the unwillingness to migrate to an all-electronic mount has hampered their lens development in the long run. Canon users paid the price of the FD to EF mount transition, but the technological rewards are huge. Canon was first with USM, IS, EMD, and we have AF f/1.2 designs. We even had the EF 50/1.0L USM back in 1989. More than twenty years later and with the benefit of improved production techniques, I am hoping that Canon might see fit to refresh and reintroduce this design.


That said, Nikon is certainly not without some very impressive glass. Especially when you look at the center performance, they can clearly make some extremely sharp lenses, and when stopped down, the corner-to-corner performance is enviable--some Canon lenses do not achieve such results even at f/8. In a way, I think this reflects the different design philosophies between the two companies. But if I am to trust the test chart results, I would hate to be a Nikon shooter if most of my images were taken at f/2.8 or faster.

[Jarhead5811]

I would hate to be a Nikon shooter if most of my images were taken at f/2.8 or faster.


What's the point in fast glass if it has to be stopped down to be sharp?

[Keith B]

Regarding the last point specifically, we see that there are no Nikon offerings comparable to the following Canon designs:

EF 35/1.4L USM

EF 50/1.2L USM
EF 85/1.2L II USM
EF 135/2L USM
EF 400/5.6L USM
EF 800/5.6L IS USM



Indeed, I feel like the absence of these designs in the Nikon lineup is a significant disadvantage with respect to prime lens photography. The one caveat I must point out is that the Nikon 50/1.4D AF is a superior lens to the EF 50/1.2L and EF 50/1.4 in terms of overall sharpness. If anything, I would say that the existence of certain zooms (14-24/2.8, 200-400/4 VR) with no Canon counterpart means Nikon would be a better choice for zoom shooters--the exact opposite conclusion.


Truly, it can't be denied that Nikon's relatively late adoption of ultrasonic motor technology and the unwillingness to migrate to an all-electronic mount has hampered their lens development in the long run. Canon users paid the price of the FD to EF mount transition, but the technological rewards are huge. Canon was first with USM, IS, EMD, and we have AF f/1.2 designs. We even had the EF 50/1.0L USM back in 1989. More than twenty years later and with the benefit of improved production techniques, I am hoping that Canon might see fit to refresh and reintroduce this design.


....I would hate to be a Nikon shooter if most of my images were taken at f/2.8 or faster.






I don't know if this is for certain but I have read that the Nikon mount is too small to achieve apertures larger than 1.4 where the EF mount will allow for 1.2 or even 1.0 in certain ranges.

[wickerprints]

I don't know if this is for certain but I have read that the Nikon mount is too small to achieve apertures larger than 1.4 where the EF mount will allow for 1.2 or even 1.0 in certain ranges.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





No, this is not quite accurate; Nikon has made a 50/1.2, 55/1.2, and 58/1.2, all manual focus lenses in variations on the F-mount. However, they have not made any such lenses with AF capability.


Strictly speaking, the f-number relates only to the focal length (at infinity focus) divided by the diameter of the entrance pupil; the flange diameter does not directly relate to this ratio. Otherwise, one would not be able to construct lenses like a 300/2.8, in which the entrance pupil has a diameter of approximately 107mm, much larger than any 35mm format lens mount. A telephoto lens has a pupil magnification ratio of less than 1 (i.e. exit pupil dia. / entrance pupil dia. &lt; 1), and it is this asymmetry that relates to the light-gathering ability of the lens. Hence a small mount diameter does indirectly impose constraints on the optical formula, in the sense that it requires asymmetric construction of fast lenses for shorter focal lengths. This is part of the reason for Canon's decision to design the EF mount with a fairly large diameter.


In short, while it is not absolutely necessary to make the mount especially large, it does have the effect of expanding the possible design parameters of lenses for the system.


Something else that must be taken into consideration when designing large-aperture lenses with AF is that the design is further constrained by the requirements of the AF motor in two important ways:

The AF motor and supporting electronics require additional space inside the barrel.
The focusing group must be designed to permit efficient operation with the AF design.



The first point should be fairly obvious, but the second is more subtle. What I mean by this is that an AF lens must be designed in such a way that the focusing group's travel cannot be very long or its mass too heavy. Manual focus lenses often have focusing rings that turn well over 200 degrees from MFD to infinity, and they are geared in a way that permits very fine control of focus via the ring since this is the only way to focus the lens. An AF lens cannot afford this luxury as it compromises the AF speed, as does a design in which the focusing group is made of many elements or heavy elements. An example of such a lens is the EF 85/1.2L II USM, which is a front-focusing design that uses Canon's most powerful USM motor to move well over a pound of solid glass with pinpoint accuracy. It is the only EF lens, other than the supertelephotos, to use the 77mm ring USM.


This is why I often feel it is unfair to compare AF lenses against MF lenses in terms of "feel." They necessarily feel different because they are constrained by different requirements--the former has to have a short focusing helical to be "snappy," and the latter has to have a long one to facilitate accurate focus.


In light of these considerations, I believe that the real reason why Nikon has not designed a f/1.2 AF lens has less to do with the mount diameter than it has to do with their relative lateness in developing AF motor technology. This conjecture is supported by the fact that there still remain relatively few AF-S FX lenses in the Nikon lineup.

[Sheiky]

<div>



Better still, when I am clearly a canon user, a delighted nikon person will come up to me every now and again and ask for me to photograph them using their gear....


You know you can get banned from this forum for these kind of actions, don't you?



It helps to now how to turn a nikon on and focus!
<div>


They make their geir hard to use so it seems like proper and professional gear, but the truth is...
</div>




</div>



If anyone posts a photo shot with a Nikon I will say it's bad!


This made me giggle.... thanks... I wasn't having a terrific day, and it helped.






Haha great! I'm not having the best week of my life either, I saw the opportunity to fool around a little and I really couldn't resist to do it [:D]


About 1,5 week ago my swimming-trainer asked me what was wrong with his photos. His photos were looking dull and without contrast. I asked what camera he used and he said: D200 and D50, Sigma 17-70 f2.8-f4 and Nikkor 70-200 something something. So I said: No wonder: trade all your gear for Canon gear and your problem is solved... He was looking like..."are you serious???"


Haha of course I wasn't serious, but I can still remember his face and it makes me smile again when I think of it! [:D]


Eventually the problem was his lens...after upgrading to a Tamron 17-50 f2.8 his photos improved drastically, but I must say it was quite some work to get used to all the Nikon abbreviations and operations. The AF motor is different etc...


Anyway I wouldn't mind having a Nikon if it was giving me the same results or better than my 5D2 and lenses do. And I also have a Sigma lens so I guess I'm not a total Canon-freak either [:P]

[malfunctions]

Better still, when I am clearly a canon user, a delighted nikon person will come up to me every now and again and ask for me to photograph them using their gear....


You know you can get banned from this forum for these kind of actions, don't you?






I was in antelope canyon and there was someone with the whole hasselblad digital set up and massive tripod. I wasn't asked to take their photo. Maybe the hasselblad club has stricter rules! Always interesting though to talk and to learn.

[Sheiky]

I wasn't asked to take their photo. Maybe the hasselblad club has stricter rules!


Haha I guess so [:D] I've never seen anyone shooting with a Hasselblad, but I've heard a lot...

[clemmb]

I commented earlier on this, but I am really surprised at the ISO Charts.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





I have seen this comment but not much discussion. When I look at the ISO charts I can not believe Nikon is that bad. What am I missing?


Are my eyes so canon biased that I see purple in most of the Nikon ISO charts?


Mark

[Dave Johnston]

Are my eyes so canon biased that I see purple in most of the Nikon ISO charts?


Mark





No... I see it too. I was really kind of wondering the same thing, myself. Not all of the nikon lenses' ISO-charts have that. So, I don't really know what the deal is.


Dave.

[Keith B]

To my eyes, when a Nikon Lens ISO Chart is sharp it looks like it has been (over?) sharpened. They just look unnaturally sharp.

[jake66]

Whilst I generally try not to spend too much time comparing specs and charts, I did do a quick comparison between the Canon 17-55 2.8 (which I aquired recently)and the Nikon version on the ISO charts.


Makesthe Canon lenslook prettysoft in comparison.


I am still constantly amazed by the quality of of shots frommy Canon 17-55 though [:)]

[neuroanatomist]

I did do a quick comparison between the Canon 17-55 2.8 (which I aquired recently)and the Nikon version on the ISO charts.


Makesthe Canon lenslook prettysoft in comparison.





Do keep in mind that Nikon doesn't exactly have EF-S lenses. Even though their DX lenses - like the 17-55mm f/2.8 - only cover a 1.5x image circle, they still work on full-frame cameras (albeit with significant vignetting). Bryan's test of the Nikon 17-55mm is on a DX3 - a FF camera body, whereas Bryan's test of the Canon 17-55mm is on a 50D (1.6x crop sensor), since EF-S lenses only work on crop bodies.

[Geoff]

I'm also glad that Bryan in including the comparison between the Nikon and Canon gear...but I'm a bit perplexed by exactly what you're looking at to draw a conclusion that xx canon lens is sharper than yy nikon lens.


Let me explain a bit more:


I pulled down the Canon 17-40L zoom at 17 mm and f4.0 and compared it to the Nikon17-55mm f2.8 if-ed af-s DX n lens set to 17 mm and f 4. Now that the lenses are set at the same f number and focal length, I would expect that the field of view should be identical for a valid comparison. Instead the Canon image is 50% larger than the Nikon image. Thus, I can't make a valid comparison of the two lenses! I would naturally expect the less expanded view of the resolution target to look sharper.


I understand that the two camera bodies may be at different pixel densities...but for a proper comparison, one camera (?canon?) should be down sampled, or the other camera (?nikon?) should be up sampled so that the same area of the target is compared.





Bryan in his explanation states:
<p style="padding-left: 120px;"]Why Do the Pattern Sizes Vary



While I go to great lengths to get perfect test shots, there may be very
slight variations in the framing of the tests (usually not more than a
few pixels).
I do not think these variances are enough to sway any comparisons -
otherwise I reshoot the test.
Still, some graphics in the test crops vary in size.
What you are probably seeing is lens distortion.
<p style="padding-left: 120px;"]


Perhaps someone could write a quick paragraph as how to properly use the resolution charts to augment what Bryan has already written...particularly when the field of view changes so drastically.


It would be a great help to us newbies!

[neuroanatomist]

...I'm a bit perplexed by exactly what you're looking at to draw a conclusion that xx canon lens is sharper than yy nikon lens...Perhaps someone could write a quick paragraph as how to properly use the resolution charts to augment what Bryan has already written...


I think the point is that you cannot draw such comparisons using these charts. If you look through the Canon lenses, you'll find some shot with both FF and 1.6x crop bodies, and the apparent fields of view are quite different. If you read elsewhere in the About ISO 12233 Charts ("http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Help/ISO-12233.aspx) page:



Lenses should be critically compared to each other only with test samples from the same camera body as it is the combination that is tested. Camera can be critically compared to each other using the same lens(theCanon EF 200mm f/2 L IS USM LensandCanon EF 200mm f/2.8 L II USM Lenshave results from many cameras included)...


Most of the Canon lenses are shot with a 1DsIII body, so they can be compared to one another. Bryan indicated two lenses which have been tested with many (Canon) bodies, so you can compare the bodies. I think all of the Nikon lenses are tested with a D3x - meaning that you can fairly compare those Nikon lenses only with one another, and not with Canon lenses.


At least, that's how I interpret it.