Canon vz Nikon - This should stir up something

Sandman wrote:
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.

And he out and out lied about the Canon 70-200mm,
claiming it has absolutely no focus breathing. It does.

He then based all of his discussion on the claim that he
frames images by changing location (an extremely poor
technique to begin with), saying that he is using focal
lengths that in fact the Canon lense cannot achieve at
that focus distance any more than can the Nikon.

The fact is that Nikon has more focus breathing, and it
has only one effect that should be considered
significant: it allows sharper images at close focus
distances! That is the reason to go with Nikon, because
between a very slightly sharper lens and significantly
better resolving power of their sensors, Nikon produces
(in that one specific target area) better images.

He could have narrowed in on some area where Canon is
better. But that may be hard to find, and not as
universally appealing! The MP-E 65mm macro lens that
will shoot at 5X magnification is and example where
Canon does have something Nikon does not.

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

Because it produces excellent head shots! Of course the
70-200mm f/2.8G VRII will do that even better...

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.

The Nifty Fifty from Canon, as is the Nikkor 50mm
f/1.8D, is a POS. Nikon has the inexpensive and fairly
wonderful 50mm f/1.8G. What has Canon got to match
that?

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

In article , Sandman
wrote:

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

i know what he's basing it on. it's bull****.

as that link says, there is no info on how it is calculated:
Complete scientific or technical documentation of the process used to
compute P-MPix values has never been published, and P-MPix
measurements been never been made without the cooperation of DxO Labs.


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.

a 70-200mm lens (or 80-200mm without stabilization) is an excellent
choice for portraits.

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's not an entry level consumer and entry level consumers don't want
nor need a 50mm lens. they buy one, maybe two kit lenses and that's the
end of that.

for his use (portraits), it's a bad choice, and it also contradicts
what he said elsewhere, where he usually shoots at 150-200mm for
portraits, so why did he even mention it?

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.

nothing odd about it. he's being paid by canon so he's going to pick
and choose what makes them look good.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

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.

i don't care who he quoted. lens resolution is measured in lines per
millimeter (lpm) or lines per picture height (lph) at a certain mtf,
usually 50.

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?

actually, he doesn't say that, since he contradicts himself with his
examples and what he says about other lenses.

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 needs to use the *same* lens when making a comparison, and also at
the *same* distance and f/stop, which he clearly wasn't.

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.

i understood the comparison. it's obvious that he has an agenda.

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?

so his claim that canon has more lenses is bull****.

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.

no he wasn't and it doesn't matter to him at all.

he claims portraits at 150-200mm is what he shoots the most, which is
very, very different than the type of macro the mp-e is designed for.

he was explaining that people should consider canon because only canon
has a very specialized lens, *without* mentioning that nikon *also* has
specialized lenses.

he also said that nikon was 'an afterthought' because one lens came out
with the nikon version a little after the canon version. the opposite
also happens on occasion too, but in nearly every case, nikon/canon
mounts come out at the same time.

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?

the 14-24 is far more useful to a typical user than an mp-e ever would
be.

and i find it incredibly hard to believe that he has no use for a wide
angle lens at all, but yet has a use for a 5x macro.

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.

resorting to personal attacks, i see.

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.

my contribution is pointing out all of his contradictions and sloppy
comparisons.

In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote:

The Nifty Fifty from Canon, as is the Nikkor 50mm
f/1.8D, is a POS. Nikon has the inexpensive and fairly
wonderful 50mm f/1.8G. What has Canon got to match
that?

the nikon one is not a pos. it's a little weak wide open but that's
common for many lenses, especially inexpensive ones. stop it down 1
stop and it's quite good. it's a very good deal for the money.

the only issue is that it won't autofocus on entry level bodies but he
isn't an entry level shooter and most entry level buyers aren't going
to want a 50mm anyway. they all want zooms.

i don't know about the canon, nor do you, since you don't use canon
equipment.

In article , Floyd L. Davidson
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.

floyd and i agree????

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.

yep.

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

his point is that it breathes less than the nikon, which is true for
the new nikon version. the older nikon 70-200 breathed less, likely
comparable to the canon.

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.

true, but it's also a lot more money.

however, there is a 180/2.8 which is only slightly shorter and can be
cropped to compensate.

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.)

he also said nikon lacks a 400/5.6, but they actually have that in the
form of a zoom lens, the 80-400 f/4-5.6.

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

bingo. that was obvious from the start.

In article , 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.

floyd and i agree in this case.

nospam wrote:
In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote:

The Nifty Fifty from Canon, as is the Nikkor 50mm
f/1.8D, is a POS. Nikon has the inexpensive and fairly
wonderful 50mm f/1.8G. What has Canon got to match
that?

the nikon one is not a pos. it's a little weak wide open but that's
common for many lenses, especially inexpensive ones. stop it down 1
stop and it's quite good. it's a very good deal for the money.

the only issue is that it won't autofocus on entry level bodies but he
isn't an entry level shooter and most entry level buyers aren't going
to want a 50mm anyway. they all want zooms.

i don't know about the canon, nor do you, since you don't use canon
equipment.

You don't know about anything...

The Canon lens and the Nikon lens both use a "trick"
that can fool the naive about sharpness. They over
corrected for spherical aberrations, which at f/8 in
many circumstances results in an image with an
appearance of being sharper.

Of course it also produces the harshest possible out of
focus areas immagined. And not helped by not enough
diaphragm blades that are not rounded either.

Neither lens is worth even the very low prices they sell
for. They are a cheap POS.

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

nospam wrote:
In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote:

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

his point is that it breathes less than the nikon, which is true for
the new nikon version. the older nikon 70-200 breathed less, likely
comparable to the canon.

He did not say that. He said flat out the Canon lens
does not breath at all. Then he claims he uses it for
close focus most of the time at focal lengths the lens
cannot achieve. He went into great detail and produced
what he claimed were DXO graphs to prove it. All
a fabrication...

He very carefully explained how the Nikon lens cannot
get to 200mm at minimum focus distance and knowingly
made the false claim that the Canon lens can.

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

On 2015-01-16 04:03:02 +0000, Savageduck said:

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!

Yup! It did stir something up. ;-)

What I had a problem with was how with one breath he declares that he
is a Nikon convert, and then proceeds to tell us why he is still
compelled to shoot with his Canon, and justifies his opinion with an
apples & oranges comparison. All questionable at best.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote:

The Nifty Fifty from Canon, as is the Nikkor 50mm
f/1.8D, is a POS. Nikon has the inexpensive and fairly
wonderful 50mm f/1.8G. What has Canon got to match
that?

the nikon one is not a pos. it's a little weak wide open but that's
common for many lenses, especially inexpensive ones. stop it down 1
stop and it's quite good. it's a very good deal for the money.

the only issue is that it won't autofocus on entry level bodies but he
isn't an entry level shooter and most entry level buyers aren't going
to want a 50mm anyway. they all want zooms.

i don't know about the canon, nor do you, since you don't use canon
equipment.

You don't know about anything...

i see it didn't take long for an ad hominem. typical.

The Canon lens and the Nikon lens both use a "trick"
that can fool the naive about sharpness. They over
corrected for spherical aberrations, which at f/8 in
many circumstances results in an image with an
appearance of being sharper.

slrgear.com is hardly naive:

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/97
In summary, you don't get much better value for money in terms of
sharpness if you stop down to Ÿ/8. Wide open sharpness isn't the
best, but if you can keep it at Ÿ/2.8 or smaller you're rewarded with
very sharp images.
....
Conclusion
While its wide-open performance leaves a bit to be desired, it's hard
not to commend this lens for its performance based solely on its
price point. Stop it down to Ÿ/2.8 and it provides excellent results;
by Ÿ/8, it's one of the sharpest lenses we've tested.

also, i guarantee that given a bunch of images taken at 50mm with
various lenses, you would *not* be able to tell which lens was used and
that's really all that matters.

Of course it also produces the harshest possible out of
focus areas immagined. And not helped by not enough
diaphragm blades that are not rounded either.

the bokeh is not the greatest but that's minor.

Neither lens is worth even the very low prices they sell
for. They are a cheap POS.

they're both a very good deal for the money.