Canon vz Nikon - This should stir up something

I thought this a very interesting and worthwhile presentation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jva08HY6uLE
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

I thought this a very interesting and worthwhile presentation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jva08HY6uLE

complete waste of time. he makes many bogus claims and contradicts
himself.

On 2015-01-16 03:19:24 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

I thought this a very interesting and worthwhile presentation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jva08HY6uLE

Yup!

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Thu, 15 Jan 2015 23:02:20 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

I thought this a very interesting and worthwhile presentation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jva08HY6uLE

complete waste of time. he makes many bogus claims and contradicts
himself.

Why am I not surprised?

It's too much to expect you to cite examples and substantiate your
opinions. :-(
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

I thought this a very interesting and worthwhile presentation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jva08HY6uLE

complete waste of time. he makes many bogus claims and contradicts
himself.

Why am I not surprised?

It's too much to expect you to cite examples and substantiate your
opinions. :-(

he claims lenses have xx megapixels of resolution, which is not how
resolution is measured in a lens.

he doesn't understand internal focus. he claims the nikon 70-200mm is
really 60-130mm, yet it's legally required to be within 5% of the
stated range, or 66.5-73.5 to 190-210mm (and it is). it's true that the
focal length varies at shorter distances with internal focus, but it's
rarely an issue at typical portrait distances, the types of photos he
says he shoots. not only that, but the d800 has a lot more pixels than
his canon, so he can easily crop to make up the difference and still be
ahead. he later shows an example photo he claims was shot at 140mm with
a tamron lens of all things at a different (and unspecified) distance.
why not use the lens he's bitching about? he also switches to the older
version of the nikon for resolution comparisons. he's all over the map
on that one.

he bitched about the nikon 50mm being expensive (which it isn't) but
they make a cheaper one that would work just as well on the cameras
he'd be buying. he says 50mm is great for portraits but elsewhere he
said that 140mm is too close for portraits. can't have it both ways. a
50 is actually too short for portraits, even on dx where it's 75mm.

he said there is no nikon 200mm f/4, which is technically true, but he
conveniently neglects to mention the nikon 200mm f/2, 180mm f/4 and the
extremely good 200-400 f/4 zoom.

the canon mp-e is a highly specialized lens which nikon doesn't have,
but nikon has various specialized lenses canon does not have such as
tilt/shift lenses. neither of those matter to the majority of people.

he also neglected to mention the nikon 14-24mm, a lens so good that it
motivated someone to build an adapter ring for canon bodies that is
electrically compatible in addition to mechanically so that it could be
used on canon with minimal fuss.

at the end of the day, nikon/canon doesn't matter much. nobody is going
to be able to tell which camera took the photo. get whichever one you
want.

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

I thought this a very interesting and worthwhile presentation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jva08HY6uLE --

Yeah, I've seen it before. It's a good video. Good info.


--
Sandman[.net]

On Fri, 16 Jan 2015 00:27:30 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

I thought this a very interesting and worthwhile presentation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jva08HY6uLE

complete waste of time. he makes many bogus claims and contradicts
himself.

Why am I not surprised?

It's too much to expect you to cite examples and substantiate your
opinions. :-(

he claims lenses have xx megapixels of resolution, which is not how
resolution is measured in a lens.

He quoted DxO. You should have a look some time at the DxO site.

he doesn't understand internal focus. he claims the nikon 70-200mm is
really 60-130mm, yet it's legally required to be within 5% of the
stated range, or 66.5-73.5 to 190-210mm (and it is). it's true that the
focal length varies at shorter distances with internal focus, but it's
rarely an issue at typical portrait distances,

He says it is. Who are you to judge?

the types of photos he
says he shoots. not only that, but the d800 has a lot more pixels than
his canon, so he can easily crop to make up the difference and still be
ahead. he later shows an example photo he claims was shot at 140mm with
a tamron lens of all things at a different (and unspecified) distance.
why not use the lens he's bitching about?

Because he was showing the effect of the difference in the focal
length.

he also switches to the older
version of the nikon for resolution comparisons. he's all over the map
on that one.

His explanation is obviously above you.

he bitched about the nikon 50mm being expensive (which it isn't) but
they make a cheaper one that would work just as well on the cameras
he'd be buying. he says 50mm is great for portraits but elsewhere he
said that 140mm is too close for portraits. can't have it both ways. a
50 is actually too short for portraits, even on dx where it's 75mm.

he said there is no nikon 200mm f/4, which is technically true, but he
conveniently neglects to mention the nikon 200mm f/2, 180mm f/4 and the
extremely good 200-400 f/4 zoom.

So?

the canon mp-e is a highly specialized lens which nikon doesn't have,
but nikon has various specialized lenses canon does not have such as
tilt/shift lenses. neither of those matter to the majority of people.

He was explaining why it mattered to him.

he also neglected to mention the nikon 14-24mm, a lens so good that it
motivated someone to build an adapter ring for canon bodies that is
electrically compatible in addition to mechanically so that it could be
used on canon with minimal fuss.

Had it occurred to you that he has no use for that lens?

at the end of the day, nikon/canon doesn't matter much. nobody is going
to be able to tell which camera took the photo. get whichever one you
want.

I have to admit that I have great difficulty in distinguishing Nikon
from Canon in your shots.

I expected something like this from you and I almost responded to you
in advance when I first posted the URL. As it is, you have contributed
nothing to this discussion so far and I intend to ignore you until you
do. I suggest you go back and get the point of what all this is about.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , nospam wrote:

Eric Stevens:
I thought this a very interesting and worthwhile presentation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jva08HY6uLE

nospam:
complete waste of time. he makes many bogus claims and
contradicts himself.

Eric Stevens:
Why am I not surprised?

It's too much to expect you to cite examples and substantiate your
opinions. :-(

he claims lenses have xx megapixels of resolution, which is not how
resolution is measured in a lens.

No he's not. He's citing DXOMark, which calls it "Perceptual megapixels",
and it's a rating for every lens. You may not agree with it, or the term,
but it's what he's basing it on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perceptual_MegaPixel

he doesn't understand internal focus. he claims the nikon 70-200mm
is really 60-130mm, yet it's legally required to be within 5% of the
stated range, or 66.5-73.5 to 190-210mm (and it is).

He's in reference to focus breathing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breathing_(lens)

Where the focal length of a lens changes when focusing changes. Here's Matt
Granger testing the Nikon holy trinity:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tz8lbCrLBEs&app=desktop

Of the three, the 70-200 has the largest focus breathing at the long end.

And Tony Northrup specifically mentioned using the 70-200 at "headshot
range", meaning close focus, where the lens would have a focal length
shorter than 200mm due to focus breathing.

Now, why you would use the 80-200/f.28 for headshots at 200mm is another
question alltogether.

he bitched about the nikon 50mm being expensive (which it isn't) but
they make a cheaper one that would work just as well on the cameras
he'd be buying.

You need to listen to what he says - he's talking about entry-level
cameras, and the 50/1.8D won't autofocus on those.

he also neglected to mention the nikon 14-24mm, a lens so good that
it motivated someone to build an adapter ring for canon bodies that
is electrically compatible in addition to mechanically so that it
could be used on canon with minimal fuss.

True, this I agree with. While he objects to the 70-200, the other
trinity-lenses aren't mentioned, which is odd.




--
Sandman[.net]

Eric Stevens wrote:
I thought this a very interesting and worthwhile presentation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jva08HY6uLE--

No, it may be "interesting", but the dishonesty makes
if far from worthwhile.

Northrup makes a series of factual statements that
clearly indicate Nikon's D810 is better than the Canon
5DIII and even allows how the difference extends pretty
much across all model comparisons... and then claims to
base his final decision on outright lies. Statements
that he knows are false.

He claims to describe his own photography technique; but
he describes something that is extremely poor technique,
and claims his decision is entirely based on the use of
that poor technique. The correction should be to use
valid technique, not condemning the higher quality
equipment. I doubt that he does not know the difference,
or that the invalid technique was not purposely used to
confuse the issue with a layer of false obfuscation.

His example describes "zoom with your feet" to frame an
image. It just does not work that way!

The location sets perspective, and focal length
determines framing. Perspective cannot be adjusted in
post processing, and framing can (if done right in the
field, leaving enough room to adjust with cropping).
His claims about framing his images, using focal lengths
near 200mm with the Canon 70-200mm zoom are all totally
bogus.

Northrup makes an absolute statement that the Canon
70-200mm does not have focus breathing at all. It does.

He says that most of his own use of the 70-200mm is at
close focus and very near 200mm in focal length. That
is not true because at close focus the Canon 70-200m is
something like 165mm focal length. If he used proper
technique he wouldn't have a problem and would not need
to lie about the effect.

Another ridiculous comparison was suggesting a 50mm
f/1.8 Nifty Fifty from Canon is either a good idea or
something Nikon doesn't have. The Nikon 50mm f/1.8D lens
is the same both in price and in the very poor quality!
But Nikon's users can use a 50mm f/1.8G lens that is
relatively inexpensive and has the advantage of being
worth owning. What alternatives do Canon users have???

And Northrup say a Canon 200mm f/2.8 lens can be used to
make up for the lacking characteristics of the Canon
70-200mm f/2.8 zoom, which is true, but then he says
there is no equivalent "f/2.8" from Nikon. Of course Nikon
has the fabulous and far better 200mm f/2 lens, which
incidentally was designed for Event Photography and is
optimized for use wide open at f/2.

At 200mm, whether with a zoom or a fixed focal length,
Nikon produces better image quality, due both to better
sensors and to better optics. (The same applies to
comparisons of the 80-400mm selections too.)

Tony Northrup is bought and paid for. Not honest, and
not impartial or even close.

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

On Thu, 15 Jan 2015 23:04:37 -0900, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
I thought this a very interesting and worthwhile presentation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jva08HY6uLE--

No, it may be "interesting", but the dishonesty makes
if far from worthwhile.

Northrup makes a series of factual statements that
clearly indicate Nikon's D810 is better than the Canon
5DIII and even allows how the difference extends pretty
much across all model comparisons... and then claims to
base his final decision on outright lies. Statements
that he knows are false.

He claims to describe his own photography technique; but
he describes something that is extremely poor technique,
and claims his decision is entirely based on the use of
that poor technique. The correction should be to use
valid technique, not condemning the higher quality
equipment. I doubt that he does not know the difference,
or that the invalid technique was not purposely used to
confuse the issue with a layer of false obfuscation.

His example describes "zoom with your feet" to frame an
image. It just does not work that way!

The location sets perspective, and focal length
determines framing. Perspective cannot be adjusted in
post processing, and framing can (if done right in the
field, leaving enough room to adjust with cropping).
His claims about framing his images, using focal lengths
near 200mm with the Canon 70-200mm zoom are all totally
bogus.

Northrup makes an absolute statement that the Canon
70-200mm does not have focus breathing at all. It does.

He says that most of his own use of the 70-200mm is at
close focus and very near 200mm in focal length. That
is not true because at close focus the Canon 70-200m is
something like 165mm focal length. If he used proper
technique he wouldn't have a problem and would not need
to lie about the effect.

Another ridiculous comparison was suggesting a 50mm
f/1.8 Nifty Fifty from Canon is either a good idea or
something Nikon doesn't have. The Nikon 50mm f/1.8D lens
is the same both in price and in the very poor quality!
But Nikon's users can use a 50mm f/1.8G lens that is
relatively inexpensive and has the advantage of being
worth owning. What alternatives do Canon users have???

And Northrup say a Canon 200mm f/2.8 lens can be used to
make up for the lacking characteristics of the Canon
70-200mm f/2.8 zoom, which is true, but then he says
there is no equivalent "f/2.8" from Nikon. Of course Nikon
has the fabulous and far better 200mm f/2 lens, which
incidentally was designed for Event Photography and is
optimized for use wide open at f/2.

At 200mm, whether with a zoom or a fixed focal length,
Nikon produces better image quality, due both to better
sensors and to better optics. (The same applies to
comparisons of the 80-400mm selections too.)

Tony Northrup is bought and paid for. Not honest, and
not impartial or even close.

Thanks Floyd. I pay much more attention to your opinion than I do to
he who shall not be named.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens