Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 41 to 49 of 49

Thread: Nikon reviews?

  1. #41
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    22

    Re: Nikon reviews?



    Quote Originally Posted by Sheiky


    Quote Originally Posted by 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.

  2. #42
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    2,301

    Re: Nikon reviews?



    Quote Originally Posted by malfunctions
    I wasn't asked to take their photo. Maybe the hasselblad club has stricter rules!

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



  3. #43
    Senior Member clemmb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Glenn Heights, TX
    Posts
    1,330

    Re: Nikon reviews?



    Quote Originally Posted by Keith B


    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
    Mark

  4. #44
    Senior Member Dave Johnston's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    451

    Re: Nikon reviews?



    Quote Originally Posted by clemmb


    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.
    5D mark III, 50D, 17-40 f4L, 24-70 f2.8L, 70-200 f4L ​IS, 28 f1.8, 50 f1.8, 85 f1.8, 100 f2.8 Macro

  5. #45
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Melbourne, FL
    Posts
    1,246

    Re: Nikon reviews?



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

  6. #46

    Re: Nikon reviews?



    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 []

  7. #47
    Senior Member neuroanatomist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    3,716

    Re: Nikon reviews?



    Quote Originally Posted by jake66


    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.

  8. #48
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    11

    Re: Nikon reviews?



    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!

  9. #49
    Senior Member neuroanatomist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    3,716

    Re: Nikon reviews?



    Quote Originally Posted by Geoff
    ...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 page:


    Quote Originally Posted by Bryan Carnathan
    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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •