«

Someone else wrote the following and I'm wondering if it is true:

"Canon for some time has been the faster better sports equipment. Not
all just in auto focus but also frames per second and write speed to the
buffer is also faster. Read the features and compare. There are also
many more lenses in the Canon system. Nikon only does as well as it
does because so many photographers had a large number of Nikon lenses as
the photo world began to change. Canon now has over 80% on the
professional market because of chip size and all the great features. If
you ever use a Canon Camera for just a short while you will see what I
am talking about and you would never look back. Nothing wrong with
Nikon of Fuji they are just that other 20% for the most part, and that
does not make them bad. All of the cameras today make great photographs
as long as you set them the right way. As for Canons auto focus system
everything else is second."

"Read about their ring ultrasonic motor for rapid autofocus. Hold a
Nikon in your hands and then a Canon--and compare the rapidity of
autofocus with a long lens (a Canon white lens)--even to Nikon's own
version of the ring ultrasonic motor."
--
m-m

On Jan 31, 11:59 pm, M-M <nospam....@ny.more> wrote:
> Someone else wrote the following and I'm wondering if it is true:
>

It's true, it's true.
It's damn true.

"M-M" <nospam.m-> wrote in message
news:nospam.m-m-...
> Someone else wrote the following and I'm wondering if it is true:

Both Canon and Nikon have their merits, but some of what is quoted is
just plain wrong.

> "Canon for some time has been the faster better sports equipment. Not
> all just in auto focus but also frames per second and write speed to
> the
> buffer is also faster. Read the features and compare.

That's good advice, since reading the features and comparing is where
you learn the truth.

> There are also
> many more lenses in the Canon system.

Last time I counted (last fall), the difference was a few lenses...not
exactly a big difference. The only place where Nikon lacks really is the
tilt/shift model that Canon has. And when it comes to good quality
consumer lenses, Nikon is doing better than Canon right now.

> Nikon only does as well as it
> does because so many photographers had a large number of Nikon lenses
> as
> the photo world began to change.

Except that many of those lenses are useless for sports and action since
they lack autofocus. Yet Nikon still has a good share of the market.

> you ever use a Canon Camera for just a short while you will see what I
> am talking about and you would never look back.

I laugh when I read stuff like this because I used to own Canon gear
with some nice L glass, and I sold it all to make the switch to Nikon.
The reason? Ergonomics.

I found the Nikon bodies have better control layout and are much more
comfortable to hold. I compared the Canon 30D and Nikon D80 models, and
opted to make the switch to Nikon rather than buy another Canon model.

Of course that's just me. Others may find the Canon better in their
hands, so handling is subjective.

> "Read about their ring ultrasonic motor for rapid autofocus. Hold a
> Nikon in your hands and then a Canon--and compare the rapidity of
> autofocus with a long lens (a Canon white lens)--even to Nikon's own
> version of the ring ultrasonic motor."

I think the person who said that is either a twit, or hasn't used any
recent lenses from Nikon.

I own the Nikon 18-70, 50 f/1.8, and 70-200 VR. They all focus equally
as fast as similar Canon models. I used the 70-200 VR on a D70s
side-by-side with Canons 70-200 f/4 L on an XT, so I have first-hand
experience and know that most of Nikons AF-S lenses are very fast and
very accurate.

Nikon has other advantages too, but like most of the comments above, the
differences are small and it all comes down to what the individual user
needs or prefers.

"Annika1980" <> wrote in message
news: ups.com...
> On Jan 31, 11:59 pm, M-M <nospam....@ny.more> wrote:
>> Someone else wrote the following and I'm wondering if it is true:
>
> It's true, it's true.
> It's damn true.


What??

A comment like that and no images to go with it?

M-M <nospam.m-> wrote:
>Someone else wrote the following and I'm wondering if it is true:

There is no such thing as one camera that does everything best,
and no one manufacturer has the best models for everything.

It would make a lot more sense to decribe what *you* want to do
with a camera, and ask about which models do that best. I'll grant
that the pecentages are that either a Canon or a Nikon will top the
list, but even that is not necessarily true.

The idea that either Canon or Nikon is best at everything is
riduculous; anyone who makes statements even approaching that
sort of silliness should be ignored as you search of the best
model for *your* needs.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 20:59:19 -0800, M-M wrote
(in article <nospam.m-m->):

> Someone else wrote the following and I'm wondering if it is true:
>
> "Canon for some time has been the faster better sports equipment. Not
> all just in auto focus but also frames per second and write speed to the
> buffer is also faster. Read the features and compare.

Yep. Read them and compare.

There are also
> many more lenses in the Canon system. Nikon only does as well as it
> does because so many photographers had a large number of Nikon lenses as
> the photo world began to change. Canon now has over 80% on the
> professional market because of chip size and all the great features.

No, they have less than 50% of the pro market. And what they do have is
largely due to marketing, not any real equipment advantage. The photo world
is not sports photography, either. Pros go through equipment quite rapidly.
Having a few lenses wouldn't keep them from switching if there was a real
advantage.

If
> you ever use a Canon Camera for just a short while you will see what I
> am talking about and you would never look back. Nothing wrong with
> Nikon of Fuji they are just that other 20% for the most part, and that
> does not make them bad. All of the cameras today make great photographs
> as long as you set them the right way. As for Canons auto focus system
> everything else is second."
>

Nikon is outselling Canon in Japan. Nikons are widely considered to have
better ergonomics and better lenses.


> "Read about their ring ultrasonic motor for rapid autofocus. Hold a
> Nikon in your hands and then a Canon--and compare the rapidity of
> autofocus with a long lens (a Canon white lens)--even to Nikon's own
> version of the ring ultrasonic motor."
>

Yeah, do that. And you will see this writer is full of baloney.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 22:06:10 -0800, Annika1980 wrote
(in article <. com>):

> On Jan 31, 11:59 pm, M-M <nospam....@ny.more> wrote:
>> Someone else wrote the following and I'm wondering if it is true:
>>
>
> It's true, it's true.
> It's damn true.
>
>

Now, now. If you keep hyperventilating like that we will have to put the
paper bag back on your head.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

"M-M" <nospam.m-> wrote in message
news:nospam.m-m-...
> Someone else wrote the following and I'm wondering if it is true:
>
> "Canon for some time has been the faster better sports equipment. Not
> all just in auto focus but also frames per second and write speed to the
> buffer is also faster. Read the features and compare. There are also
> many more lenses in the Canon system. Nikon only does as well as it
> does because so many photographers had a large number of Nikon lenses as
> the photo world began to change. Canon now has over 80% on the
> professional market because of chip size and all the great features. If
> you ever use a Canon Camera for just a short while you will see what I
> am talking about and you would never look back. Nothing wrong with
> Nikon of Fuji they are just that other 20% for the most part, and that
> does not make them bad. All of the cameras today make great photographs
> as long as you set them the right way. As for Canons auto focus system
> everything else is second."
>
> "Read about their ring ultrasonic motor for rapid autofocus. Hold a
> Nikon in your hands and then a Canon--and compare the rapidity of
> autofocus with a long lens (a Canon white lens)--even to Nikon's own
> version of the ring ultrasonic motor."
> --
> m-m

The above sounds rather like it was written by someone who does not yet own
a Camera.

Roy G

Bill wrote:
> "M-M" <nospam.m-> wrote in message
> news:nospam.m-m-...
>> Someone else wrote the following and I'm wondering if it is true:
>
> Both Canon and Nikon have their merits, but some of what is quoted is
> just plain wrong.
>
>> "Canon for some time has been the faster better sports equipment. Not
>> all just in auto focus but also frames per second and write speed to the
>> buffer is also faster. Read the features and compare.
>
> That's good advice, since reading the features and comparing is where
> you learn the truth.
>
>> There are also
>> many more lenses in the Canon system.
>
> Last time I counted (last fall), the difference was a few lenses...not
> exactly a big difference. The only place where Nikon lacks really is the
> tilt/shift model that Canon has. And when it comes to good quality
> consumer lenses, Nikon is doing better than Canon right now.

The post was specifically about fast sports photo equipment. In the fast
action department, Canon certainly has the fastest pro digital camera
(the 1D Mark IIN). But the difference in sports and wildlife action
photography between Nikon and Canon started before the digital era.
The main difference for this type of photography is image stabilization
in the super telephoto category. Nikon has no stabilized super telephotos.
Nikon had very few lenses with VR back in the film days to compete
with Canon's IS and Nikon still lags in the upper telephoto range
(e.g. Canon's 500 and 600 mm f/4 IS have no competition, unfortunately).

In the digital era, there are two areas where Canon is out in front:
larger sensors and lower noise. Canon has full 35mm frame pro
bodies and Nikon does not. Canon's CMOS sensors generally have about
a factor of 2 lower read noise (great for low light and astronomy
work). Sensor performance:
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...rmance.summary

>> Nikon only does as well as it
>> does because so many photographers had a large number of Nikon lenses as
>> the photo world began to change.
>
> Except that many of those lenses are useless for sports and action since
> they lack autofocus. Yet Nikon still has a good share of the market.
>
>> you ever use a Canon Camera for just a short while you will see what I
>> am talking about and you would never look back.
>
> I laugh when I read stuff like this because I used to own Canon gear
> with some nice L glass, and I sold it all to make the switch to Nikon.
> The reason? Ergonomics.
>
> I found the Nikon bodies have better control layout and are much more
> comfortable to hold. I compared the Canon 30D and Nikon D80 models, and
> opted to make the switch to Nikon rather than buy another Canon model.
>
> Of course that's just me. Others may find the Canon better in their
> hands, so handling is subjective.
>
>> "Read about their ring ultrasonic motor for rapid autofocus. Hold a
>> Nikon in your hands and then a Canon--and compare the rapidity of
>> autofocus with a long lens (a Canon white lens)--even to Nikon's own
>> version of the ring ultrasonic motor."
>
> I think the person who said that is either a twit, or hasn't used any
> recent lenses from Nikon.
>
> I own the Nikon 18-70, 50 f/1.8, and 70-200 VR. They all focus equally
> as fast as similar Canon models. I used the 70-200 VR on a D70s
> side-by-side with Canons 70-200 f/4 L on an XT, so I have first-hand
> experience and know that most of Nikons AF-S lenses are very fast and
> very accurate.

This is hardly pro level equipment. Try using a 500 mm f/4 L IS
with 1D Mark IIN and 1Ds mark II and you'll likely come to
different conclusions. Even the same L lens on an XT will not
focus as fast as on a 1D body.

I went Canon 17+ years ago through dumb luck. When looking at the
new autofocus cameras, I assumed Nikon was for pros and I couldn't
afford it, so I went with Canon. I'm glad I did because I now
use a 1D Mark II and 500 mm f/4 L IS and other lenses for
wildlife. A lot of what I do would be very limiting and difficult
to impossible without IS in the super telephoto range. But I do hope
Nikon catches up in this area. For other types of photography, Nikon
equals or in some cases surpasses Canon. I would like to see Nikon
come out with VR super telephotos and full frame sensors.
The competition will benefit us all.


> Nikon has other advantages too, but like most of the comments above, the
> differences are small and it all comes down to what the individual user
> needs or prefers.

I agree in some areas, but not concerning low light lowest noise applications,
and not in image stabilized super telephotos which is very important
for sports and wildlife action photography. And also not in full frame
high megapixel count DSLRs.

At the superbowl this Sunday, check out the photographers on the sidelines:
how many "white" telephoto lenses (Canon L) versus black (all other
manufacturers) will you see? Most will probably be using 1D Mark IIN
cameras and white L lenses, and is not due to marketing.

Roger

"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <> writes:

> But the difference in sports and wildlife action
> photography between Nikon and Canon started before the digital era.

Indeed, it started all the way back in the manual focus era with Canon
emphasizing SLR's with shutter priority auto exposure when everyone
else was aperture priority.