Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Is this true about Canon?

Reply
Thread Tools

Is this true about Canon?

 
 
C J Campbell
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-01-2007
On Thu, 1 Feb 2007 09:09:23 -0800, Annika1980 wrote
(in article <(E-Mail Removed) .com>):

> On Feb 1, 1:31 am, "Bill" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> It's true, it's true.
>>> It's damn true.

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

>
> You want to see Canon images? Go buy a Sports Illustrated.
>


But, but -- even SI doesn't love the 20D!

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
gpsman
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-01-2007
On Feb 1, 1:30 am, "Bill" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote: <brevity snip>
> Except that many of those lenses are useless for sports and action since
> they lack autofocus.


Hmmm... ever seen an "NFL Films" production...?
-----

- gpsman

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Philip Homburg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-01-2007
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Toni Nikkanen <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <(E-Mail Removed)> 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.


Funny, Nikon's first auto-exposure system (introduced in 1973) was shutter
priority. Just like Nikon's first AF system had the AF motor in the lens.

(As far as I know I have never used shutter priority, but I have to admit that
the got my first camera with that feature only a couple of years ago).


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
 
Reply With Quote
 
ASAAR
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-01-2007
On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 10:10:33 -0700, Roger N. Clark (change username
to rnclark) wrote:

>> BZZZZT!!! Invalid response. "The post was specifically about
>> fast sports photo equipment." Or so you said. <g>

>
> Double BZZZZZT!! Action photography is all about speed. Cranking up the
> ISO is often needed when light levels drop. Low noise sensors have the edge.
> So do higher megapixel count large sensors: you don't have to enlarge
> as much to get that large print, and that too helps with noise
> perception in the final image.


Sorry, but you'll see that the paragraph where you mentioned the
larger sensor and lower noise did not link it in any way to speed
and sports photography, even though in some conditions it might help
slightly. You're using hindsight as a loophole to make this claim.
When photographers want to use fast shutter speeds they may be able
to take advantage of a camera that has a higher ISO, and that's what
they'll look for in a camera, not one that has a low noise per se.
Good high ISO capability and low noise are sought for many reasons,
and sports photography is not usually near the top of the list.
Other reasons stated more often are for those that need to take
shots in very low light, or by those that prefer the more natural
look that can be obtained by avoiding the use of a flash. Larger
sensors don't necessarily improve sports photography, or many more
Kodak DSLRs would have been sold. In the case of the Kodaks, other
considerations contributed to the problem, including poor high ISO
and the lack of an AA filter. If you want to try to convince others
that when you said

> In the digital era, there are two areas where Canon is out in front:
> larger sensors and lower noise.


you were thinking of sports photography you might get some people
to believe it, but I strongly doubt that you were actually thinking
specifically of sports photography, but of how they can be of use
for many different types of photography.


> So do higher megapixel count large sensors: you don't have to
> enlarge as much to get that large print, and that too helps with
> noise perception in the final image.


But that's doesn't particularly benefit sports photographers.
Just the opposite, in fact. I may be confusing your friend Bill
with someone else, but I remember reading not too long ago where
someone said that their 1Ds Mark II was put aside in favor of an
older model that had fewer megapixels because it was able to sustain
long bursts of shots with higher frame rates than the 1DS MII was
capable of getting. Probably someone else.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Skip
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-01-2007
"David Dyer-Bennet" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:45c21e29$0$15005$(E-Mail Removed). net...
> Bill wrote:
>> "M-M" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...

>
>>> 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.

>
> A friend shooting a Canon 5D professionally isn't ready to swap for my
> Nikon D200 -- but he's been grousing about the Canon ergonomics forever
> (he's had two or three Canon DSLR bodies), and thinks Nikon is MUCH better
> in that regard.


I wonder what he used before getting the Canon DSLRs. I've used Canon
bodies for more than 20 years, and I find, on the one hand, Canon's
ergonomics more than merely acceptable, and on the other hand, find Nikon's
to be rather incomprehensible and the cameras uncomfortable to hold. It's
all a matter of what you are used to, I guess.

--
Skip Middleton
www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
www.pbase.com/skipm


 
Reply With Quote
 
David Dyer-Bennet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-01-2007
Skip wrote:
> "David Dyer-Bennet" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:45c21e29$0$15005$(E-Mail Removed). net...
>> Bill wrote:
>>> "M-M" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>> 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.

>> A friend shooting a Canon 5D professionally isn't ready to swap for my
>> Nikon D200 -- but he's been grousing about the Canon ergonomics forever
>> (he's had two or three Canon DSLR bodies), and thinks Nikon is MUCH better
>> in that regard.

>
> I wonder what he used before getting the Canon DSLRs. I've used Canon
> bodies for more than 20 years, and I find, on the one hand, Canon's
> ergonomics more than merely acceptable, and on the other hand, find Nikon's
> to be rather incomprehensible and the cameras uncomfortable to hold. It's
> all a matter of what you are used to, I guess.


I know he'd used Canon EOS film cameras, and a Nikon F, and a Nikon D1,
and lots of 4x5 and medium format gear (some his, some from school,
friends, and employers). He eventually settled down to Canon digital,
but grouses badly about the ergonomics.

I haven't really used the Canon, just handled some of them a bit, so no
opinion of my own.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Doug Robbins
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-01-2007
Don't start a another useless Canon vs. Nikon flame war. Both manufacturers
make excellent equipment and don't really need evangelists.

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


<blah-blah-blah>


 
Reply With Quote
 
THO
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-01-2007
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:
> 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).


That's what we usually hear when the superiority of Canon versus Nikon
comes up. And how many of us are in the market for a 500f4? Talk about a
niche market.
 
Reply With Quote
 
THO
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-01-2007
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:
> I counted 46 nikon versus 61 canon autofocus lenses. I would call

^^^^^^

and what about the Nikon manual focus lenses and the other 45 years
worth of SLR lenses?

> that significant: 1/3 more. More significant is lack of VR in the
> supertelephoto range IMO. I do hope nikon comes out with VR in that
> range soon. Canon certainly has more than just tilt-shift lenses over
> nikon.


Who care about 500f4 vr lenses? It is a niche market with niche tools.
How many consumers, semi-pros, and pros for that matter are EVER going
to own big glass?
 
Reply With Quote
 
Roy G
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-01-2007
"C J Campbell" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) e.com...
> On Thu, 1 Feb 2007 07:02:03 -0800, Roy G wrote
> (in article <Lhnwh.89514$(E-Mail Removed)>):
>
>>
>> "M-M" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> Someone else wrote the following and I'm wondering if it is true:
>>>

>>
>>
>> Who bloody cares??????
>>
>> I like my Nikon.
>>
>> Others like their Canons.
>>
>> Everyone lives happily ever after.
>> ( except of course the proper bar stewards who work in marketing
>> departments
>> of Camera Companies).

>
> Heretic! Next you will be saying that the Ford vs. Chevy debate is
> unimportant.
>
> Burn him at the stake!
>
> --
> Waddling Eagle
> World Famous Flight Instructor


That's right couldn't care less.

What is a "Chevy" anyway??

I drive a Fiat.

Roy G


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
[False,True] and [True,True] --> [True, True]????? bdb112 Python 45 04-29-2009 02:35 AM
"0 in [True,False]" returns True Pierre Quentel Python 59 12-16-2005 01:47 PM
TurboGears /.-ed, >new == True< or >new == "True"< Andy Leszczynski Python 4 10-13-2005 06:56 AM
C and C++ are interoperable languages? True or Not True? Chip C++ 6 01-08-2005 11:10 PM
Does true ^ true return false? Siemel Naran C++ 19 06-18-2004 11:06 AM



Advertisments