Re: New 50mm Lens From Nikon

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Rita Berkowitz, Jan 23, 2008.

  1. Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:

    >> No, you do a double-blind test by taking 20 shots (10 on-10 off)
    >> while having a friend randomly set the switch and covering it with
    >> black tape so you can't see it. Now pick correctly all 20-shots.
    >> If you can't you can be assured VR isn't working at 50mm and wider.

    >
    > Ah, so you picked one shot wrong. A success rate of less than
    > 100 percent is failure. Slavery is freedom.


    A 100% hit rate is mandatory to eliminate lucky shots.

    > Did you do that double blind test with 60mm?


    Getting consistent 100% hit rates at 51mm and longer.





    Rita
     
    Rita Berkowitz, Jan 23, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. "Rita Berkowitz" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
    >
    >>> No, you do a double-blind test by taking 20 shots (10 on-10 off)
    >>> while having a friend randomly set the switch and covering it with
    >>> black tape so you can't see it. Now pick correctly all 20-shots. If you
    >>> can't you can be assured VR isn't working at 50mm and wider.

    >>
    >> Ah, so you picked one shot wrong. A success rate of less than
    >> 100 percent is failure. Slavery is freedom.

    >
    > A 100% hit rate is mandatory to eliminate lucky shots.
    >
    >> Did you do that double blind test with 60mm?

    >
    > Getting consistent 100% hit rates at 51mm and longer.


    At what shutter speeds?

    Are you actually saying that you've done such testing at increments of 1
    millimeter, all else being equal for each shot, and all of a sudden, SHAZAM!
    at 51mm the VR produces sharp results every time while it did not at 50 or
    49mm?

    That is very, very, very hard to believe.

    Make that very, very, very, VERY hard to believe.

    Neil
     
    Neil Harrington, Jan 23, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. ["Followup-To:" header set to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems.]
    Neil Harrington <> wrote:
    > "Rita Berkowitz" <> wrote in message
    >> Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:


    >>> Ah, so you picked one shot wrong. A success rate of less than
    >>> 100 percent is failure. Slavery is freedom.


    >> A 100% hit rate is mandatory to eliminate lucky shots.


    It may be rare to throw a (non-doctored) coin 20 times and get
    heads 20 times in a row. So once you done that, what's the
    chance the next throw will be heads again? Answer me that!

    >>> Did you do that double blind test with 60mm?


    >> Getting consistent 100% hit rates at 51mm and longer.


    > At what shutter speeds?


    carefully choosen ones.

    > Are you actually saying that you've done such testing at increments of 1
    > millimeter, all else being equal for each shot, and all of a sudden, SHAZAM!
    > at 51mm the VR produces sharp results every time while it did not at 50 or
    > 49mm?


    > That is very, very, very hard to believe.


    > Make that very, very, very, VERY hard to believe.


    No, that's standard Rita-quality of argument and truth ---
    what do you expect from the (imagined) head of the (unreal)
    Nikon Ministry For Truth And Propaganda?

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jan 24, 2008
    #3
  4. Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:

    >>> A 100% hit rate is mandatory to eliminate lucky shots.

    >
    > It may be rare to throw a (non-doctored) coin 20 times and get
    > heads 20 times in a row. So once you done that, what's the
    > chance the next throw will be heads again? Answer me that!


    This, in itself, is an indicator that VR/IS is totally ineffective at focal
    lengths of 50mm and wider. Even luck won't prevail.




    Rita
     
    Rita Berkowitz, Jan 24, 2008
    #4
  5. Rita Berkowitz

    Mr.T Guest

    "Rita Berkowitz" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > This, in itself, is an indicator that VR/IS is totally ineffective at

    focal
    > lengths of 50mm and wider. Even luck won't prevail.


    Nikon's VR may be, but my Canon IS lens definitely gives sharper results
    when used wide angle at slow shutter speeds.

    MrT.
     
    Mr.T, Jan 25, 2008
    #5
  6. ["Followup-To:" header set to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems.]
    Rita Berkowitz <> wrote:
    > Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:


    >>>> A 100% hit rate is mandatory to eliminate lucky shots.

    >>
    >> It may be rare to throw a (non-doctored) coin 20 times and get
    >> heads 20 times in a row. So once you done that, what's the
    >> chance the next throw will be heads again? Answer me that!


    > This, in itself, is an indicator that VR/IS is totally ineffective


    Muhaha.

    Les me try again:
    After years of trying, I managed to flip a coin so that it
    showed heads 20 times in a row. Now, if if flip the coin
    again, what chance that it's heads again?

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jan 25, 2008
    #6
  7. ["Followup-To:" header set to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems.]
    Mr.T <MrT@home> wrote:
    > "Rita Berkowitz" <> wrote in message


    >> This, in itself, is an indicator that VR/IS is totally ineffective at focal
    >> lengths of 50mm and wider. Even luck won't prevail.


    > Nikon's VR may be, but my Canon IS lens definitely gives sharper results
    > when used wide angle at slow shutter speeds.


    Poor Rita, being stood up by ... gasp ... Canon!

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jan 25, 2008
    #7
  8. Rita Berkowitz

    measekite Guest

    I just cannot believe all of the bullshit I am reading on many many different posts.&nbsp; It is just like the old days.&nbsp; My mommy's lens is sharper than your mommy's lens.

    Who really cares.&nbsp; If you take a good photographer who shot a photo with a Canon and Canon lens and then the same photographer used a Nikon with a Nikor lens and then edited and printed them (in the same with with the same printer and paper) to a size of 11x14 and showed the results to 100 different photo enthusiasts ( not the general public) and asked them to identify which is better I would say most (unless the cheat or guess or lie) could not tell the difference.&nbsp; They may see some differences in color or tone but other than taste or preference they could not choose one as being the best on a consistent basis.

    Mr.T wrote:

    "Rita Berkowitz" &lt;&gt; wrote in message news:...



    This, in itself, is an indicator that VR/IS is totally ineffective at



    focal



    lengths of 50mm and wider. Even luck won't prevail.



    Nikon's VR may be, but my Canon IS lens definitely gives sharper results when used wide angle at slow shutter speeds. MrT.
     
    measekite, Jan 26, 2008
    #8
  9. Rita Berkowitz

    Mr.T Guest

    Re: Rita's Nikon crusade

    "measekite" <> wrote in message
    news:sBwmj.625$...
    > I just cannot believe all of the bullshit I am reading on many many

    different posts. It is just like the old days. My mommy's lens is sharper
    than your mommy's lens.
    >
    > Who really cares. If you take a good photographer who shot a photo with a

    Canon and Canon lens and then the same photographer used a Nikon with a
    Nikor lens and then edited and printed them (in the same with with the same
    printer and paper) to a size of 11x14 and showed the results to 100
    different photo enthusiasts ( not the general public) and asked them to
    identify which is better I would say most (unless the cheat or guess or lie)
    could not tell the difference. They may see some differences in color or
    tone but other than taste or preference they could not choose one as being
    the best on a consistent basis.
    --------------------------------

    If you only ever print to 11x14 and you never crop, and if pincushion and
    barrel distortions, spherical and chromatic aberrations etc. are of no
    importance to you, then just about anything short of a coke bottle will
    suffice. Some art galleries are full of polaroids and nobody ever accused
    them of being the utmost in quality.

    Rita's crusade however is just plain stupidity, many makers have made some
    fine lenses AND some horrible dogs over the years (including Nikon and Canon
    AND many others). Collectors like her tend to get fixated on brands, real
    photographers use what is appropriate, or what they have, or can afford.
    Nikon (and Canon) have made some fine lenses, but many others would argue
    that companies like Zeiss are far better.
    However you can have two similar lenses that are better at different things.
    This especially applies to zooms, but fixed lenses can be better at some
    apertures and not others, and then there are issues like "bokeh" (one of
    Rita's hobby horses) to consider. How then to pick the best lens, let alone
    one single manufacturer of maybe 50 lenses or more!

    Nobody I know of has ever properly compared every single lens from every
    manufacturer anyway, so blanket statements are just an ignorant attempt to
    feel superior, or to justify their personal bias.

    MrT.
     
    Mr.T, Jan 26, 2008
    #9
  10. Re: Rita's Nikon crusade

    Mr.T wrote:

    > Rita's crusade however is just plain stupidity, many makers have made
    > some fine lenses AND some horrible dogs over the years (including
    > Nikon and Canon AND many others). Collectors like her tend to get
    > fixated on brands, real photographers use what is appropriate, or
    > what they have, or can afford. Nikon (and Canon) have made some fine
    > lenses, but many others would argue that companies like Zeiss are far
    > better.


    Stupid in what way? I've shot both platforms for years and had many Canon
    FD lenses that were made obsolete by Canon's stupidity of abandoning the
    best mounting system and optical formula they ever had. I had to sell my
    whole collection of FDs because they don't work on EOS without a *NOW*
    available adapter. I won't make the same mistake twice, but almost did. I
    was going to start another complete Canon lens collection and decided
    against it. The main reason is Canon's lens quality is abysmal compared to
    when they were making FD lenses. And there's no reason now with Nikon's
    great FF sensor technology that the competitors will never be able to reach.
    Nikon simply set the bar too high for the wannabes to catch up!





    Rita
     
    Rita Berkowitz, Jan 26, 2008
    #10
  11. Rita Berkowitz

    George Kerby Guest

    Re: Rita's Nikon crusade

    On 1/26/08 5:24 AM, in article , "Rita
    Berkowitz" <> wrote:

    > Mr.T wrote:
    >
    >> Rita's crusade however is just plain stupidity, many makers have made
    >> some fine lenses AND some horrible dogs over the years (including
    >> Nikon and Canon AND many others). Collectors like her tend to get
    >> fixated on brands, real photographers use what is appropriate, or
    >> what they have, or can afford. Nikon (and Canon) have made some fine
    >> lenses, but many others would argue that companies like Zeiss are far
    >> better.

    >
    > Stupid in what way? I've shot both platforms for years and had many Canon
    > FD lenses that were made obsolete by Canon's stupidity of abandoning the
    > best mounting system and optical formula they ever had. I had to sell my
    > whole collection of FDs because they don't work on EOS without a *NOW*
    > available adapter. I won't make the same mistake twice, but almost did. I
    > was going to start another complete Canon lens collection and decided
    > against it. The main reason is Canon's lens quality is abysmal compared to
    > when they were making FD lenses. And there's no reason now with Nikon's
    > great FF sensor technology that the competitors will never be able to reach.
    > Nikon simply set the bar too high for the wannabes to catch up!
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > Rita
    >

    Doesn't make any difference. You couldn't produce a decent image with a
    camera whether a pinhole or a Linhoff. Give up, "Rita".
     
    George Kerby, Jan 26, 2008
    #11
  12. Re: Rita's Nikon crusade

    On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 06:24:01 -0500, "Rita Berkowitz" <>
    wrote:

    >And there's no reason now with Nikon's
    >great FF sensor technology


    Isn't that Sony FF sensor technology?

    --
    Scott in Florida
     
    Scott in Florida, Jan 26, 2008
    #12
  13. Re: Rita's Nikon crusade

    Scott in Florida wrote:

    >> And there's no reason now with Nikon's
    >> great FF sensor technology

    >
    > Isn't that Sony FF sensor technology?


    Nope! It is in the D300, though.




    Rita
     
    Rita Berkowitz, Jan 26, 2008
    #13
  14. Rita Berkowitz

    Mr.T Guest

    Re: Rita's Nikon crusade

    "Rita Berkowitz" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Stupid in what way? I've shot both platforms for years and had many Canon
    > FD lenses that were made obsolete by Canon's stupidity of abandoning the
    > best mounting system and optical formula they ever had. I had to sell my
    > whole collection of FDs because they don't work on EOS without a *NOW*
    > available adapter. I won't make the same mistake twice, but almost did.

    I
    > was going to start another complete Canon lens collection and decided
    > against it.


    Ah, now I see why you have such a grudge against Canon lenses. Time to get
    over it though!

    I held on to mine, and all my Zuiko's, and specifically bought a camera that
    could mount them. That ruled out Nikon.
    But then since I kept all my film bodies as well, there was no desire to get
    rid of good lenses at throw away prices.

    MrT.
     
    Mr.T, Jan 27, 2008
    #14
  15. Re: Rita's Nikon crusade

    Mr.T wrote:

    > I
    >> was going to start another complete Canon lens collection and decided
    >> against it.

    >
    > Ah, now I see why you have such a grudge against Canon lenses. Time
    > to get over it though!


    That's just it, I am over it. I even gave Canon a second chance by buying
    the Mk III and ultimately the 500/4L IS. I was extremely pleased with the
    Mk III, the 500/4L, NO. Since I have totally eliminated all "what if I
    bought ____" I'm now very content with my Nikkors and D3.





    Rita
     
    Rita Berkowitz, Jan 27, 2008
    #15
  16. Rita Berkowitz

    Mr.T Guest

    Re: Rita's Nikon crusade

    "Rita Berkowitz" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > >> I was going to start another complete Canon lens collection and decided
    > >> against it.

    > >
    > > Ah, now I see why you have such a grudge against Canon lenses. Time
    > > to get over it though!

    >
    > That's just it, I am over it.


    Then maybe you can stop all the pro Nikon-Anti Canon posts and give the rest
    of us a break!

    >I'm now very content with my Nikkors and D3.


    Good for you. Maybe you should move on to the business of just taking
    photo's with them now then :)

    MrT.
     
    Mr.T, Jan 28, 2008
    #16
  17. Re: Rita's Nikon crusade

    Mr.T wrote:

    >> I'm now very content with my Nikkors and D3.

    >
    > Good for you. Maybe you should move on to the business of just taking
    > photo's with them now then :)


    I am and I'm enjoying the hell out of them.





    Rita
     
    Rita Berkowitz, Jan 28, 2008
    #17
  18. Re: Rita's Nikon crusade

    On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 08:04:10 -0500, "Rita Berkowitz" <>
    wrote:

    >Mr.T wrote:
    >
    >>> I'm now very content with my Nikkors and D3.

    >>
    >> Good for you. Maybe you should move on to the business of just taking
    >> photo's with them now then :)

    >
    >I am and I'm enjoying the hell out of them.


    Wouldn't they all be much better if you used Canon.....?
     
    David Springthorpe, Jan 29, 2008
    #18
  19. Re: Rita's Nikon crusade

    ["Followup-To:" header set to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems.]

    David Springthorpe <> wrote:
    > On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 08:04:10 -0500, "Rita Berkowitz" <>


    >>I am and I'm enjoying the hell out of them.


    > Wouldn't they all be much better if you used Canon.....?


    Nope: even with Canon, one must press the shutter button in the
    right circumstances, at the right moment, pointing the camera in
    the right direction ...

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jan 30, 2008
    #19
  20. Rita Berkowitz

    Noons Guest

    Re: Rita's Nikon crusade

    On Jan 27, 2:38 am, Scott in Florida <> wrote:

    >
    > >And there's no reason now with Nikon's
    > >great FF sensor technology

    >
    > Isn't that Sony FF sensor technology?


    Pretty soon. And at 24MP too...
     
    Noons, Jan 31, 2008
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Rita Berkowitz

    Re: New 50mm Lens From Nikon

    Rita Berkowitz, Jan 23, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    396
    Rita Berkowitz
    Jan 24, 2008
  2. Rita Berkowitz

    Re: New 50mm Lens From Nikon

    Rita Berkowitz, Jan 24, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    334
    Kinon O'Cann
    Jan 25, 2008
  3. Replies:
    8
    Views:
    2,120
    Paul Furman
    Jan 15, 2009
  4. Bob Williams

    Re: 50mm 1.4 vs 50mm 1.8

    Bob Williams, Jan 13, 2009, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    480
    David Ruether
    Jan 13, 2009
  5. M-M
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    31,267
Loading...

Share This Page