Originally Posted by Daniel Browning
Why do you say that?
Why do you say that?
Because at small print sizes like 4x6, a large amount of blur (e.g. across 4 pixels) doesn't show up in the print, so even without I.S. you have to go to extremely long exposure durations to see any motion blur in the small print, like 1/4 second for 16mm. If instead you look at large print sizes or 100% crops, I find that much shorter durations are needed, like 1/32+ to get critical sharpness for 100% crops of a 21 MP sensor. I think it would be easier to get 1/32 down to 1/4 with VR than to get 1/4 down to 1 second. I don't know what it is, exactly. Hopefully I'll get to try one out.
Are you saying Nikon is in cahoots with Ken Rockwell to totally abolish tripods?[li]
I've never liked Nikon's layout or user interface. It's a pain to change settings, whereas I was pretty much ready to go within a minute of unboxing my 5D2.
Right now, Nikon has better AF, better noise control (though this "star-killer" thing makes me think they've gone a bit too far with that), and that's about it. Canon has more resolution. But I am a strong proponent of the design wisdom of the EF mount, and I have more respect for Canon's lens development. They have consistently and repeatedly showed initiative where others have not. USM AF, IS, DO, CaF2--these are all Canon innovations. They are the only company to have production f/1.2 lenses with AF, the only company with a dedicated 1:1 - 5:1 macro, and their TS-E line is unparalleled in the industry. I look at Nikon's lineup and see a confusing jumble of designs.
If I had to choose one company to bet on who will come out with the next major innovation in optics, I would say Canon.
Yeah, I've always been a simplicity guy. I want things intuitive and simple and that is what I found Canon to be. I am also a guy that love to hear about lenses or bodies that have character, the intangibles that can be pinned down to techie specs. Like when you hear people talk about the 35 1.4, 85 1.2, the 135 2.0, the 70-200 2.8 IS or the 400 2.8. It seems these lenses just have mystique to them and the images have something special.
I remember looking at images a photographer supplied us with out of the 5D mkI some years ago. They were so different looking than anything I had seen out of a digital camera. It made me want a 5D so bad, even when the 5DII was announced I almost wanted the mkI because I was afraid the mkII wouldn't have the same magic. I did get the mkII and realized the magic carried over.
I have witness the magic of the 35L and the 70-200 2.8 IS first hand and am looking for to the same euphoria the 85 1.2 will bring some day.
I doubt I will ever depart from the character I have discovered in these Canon items. I look for character not perfection.
Do you mean that the D3 af is better than the canon 1 series af, or just that their high end af's end up in less expensive cameras? (I think few would dispute that the D700 has a better af than the 5DII- that's probably the largest difference)
But who cares about that. With canon, you can turn NR off completely and use dedicated software later.
I should add that I really like Canon long exposure noise reduction. For long exposures, I get better results doing NR in camera than any other way (though that could just be because I don't know what I'm doing)
If I understand the "star killer" thing correctly, it is not relevant except in long exposures. Furthermore, there would be no real problem if only it could be turned off.
In what way is fluorite a Canon innovation? Are you saying that the notion of using Fluorite in optics was Canon's idea, or were they just the first to use it in camera lenses? Or the first to use synthetic fluorite? Or something else?
That's a biggie (in terms of utility, not in terms of innovation, I don't think). Why don't the Nikon guys want one?
I wholeheartedly agree, and just one of the reasons I stick with Canon. The Nikon F mount is a confusingmash-upof fading legacies. Canon EF would let me use the newest lenses (even with IS) on my film EOS 10s from 1991.
And if I have to, the larger diameter of the EF bayonet lets me adapt Nikon F and Canon FD (and just about anything else that doesn't hit the mirror) in manual-focus mode.
To me, as an electrical engineer, it is just a more elegant system. It's not often you get to wipe the slate clean and start from scratch like Canon did with EOS, but I think it was worth it and has paid off.
Here are my reasons:
1. Cheaper lenses
2. No 400 f/5.6, 300 f/4 with VR, or decent wildlife tele zoom. the 80-400 @#$%!
3. lose $$$ selling Canon and buying Nikon
4. 1080p video vs. 720p video
5. White superteles
The one thing I do envy in Nikon is their 51-pt. autofocus. It's amazing. And it isn't reserved for the D3. If Nikon had a better wildlife lens last year when I was in the market for an SLR, I would be shooting Nikon now. Plus, my uncle shoots Nikon and we could share lenses. If Nikon comes out with a 300 f/4 VR soon...[6]
Agree completely. And now with Weather sealing, hybrid IS...It's amazing.
I refer to the latter. They are more "generous" with their AF across their product range.
But who cares about that. With canon, you can turn NR off completely and use dedicated software later.
Not quite. The problem is not of post-reduction noise, but read noise and native noise that is slightly greater in Canon cameras. It is about the quality of the information captured in the first place.
In what way is fluorite a Canon innovation? Are you saying that the notion of using Fluorite in optics was Canon's idea, or were they just the first to use it in camera lenses? Or the first to use synthetic fluorite? Or something else?
Canon was the first--and I believe remains the only--camera company to develop and manufacture production-quality crystalline fluorite optical elements. These elements are not glass, which is amorphous silica--they are literally synthetic crystals.
That's a biggie (in terms of utility, not in terms of innovation, I don't think). Why don't the Nikon guys want one?
They probably do. But there are a lot of other designs--as I mentioned--that Nikon is lacking compared to Canon, most of which are specialist lenses, like the MP-E, the TS-Es, and the f/1.2s. They are trying to compete with Canon's fast L primes, and that's what this 24/1.4 lens is about.
It really comes down to the fact that Canon is a gigantic company with financial resources to match. Nikon is a much smaller company in comparison, both in total operating revenue and number of employees. Of course, neither company is solely devoted to DSLRs and 35mm lenses. But the overall size of the company plays an important role in how much research and risk they are willing to take on. Canon can afford to dabble a bit. That's how we saw marvelously strange offerings like the EF 50/1.0L USM, for example. IIRC Nikon was in some trouble some years ago.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote