If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Canon vz Nikon - This should stir up something
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. he said the canon was 70-195mm which is a little bit of breathing. it's also wrong, as it's closer to 170 at the distances he's talking about, which is less than the nikon. the problem is that his comparison of the nikon was to 200mm. 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... true. 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. the new nikon 70-200 breathes more than the canon and the older nikon 70-200. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Canon vz Nikon - This should stir up something
On Fri, 16 Jan 2015 11:33:57 -0500, nospam
wrote: 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. That's all you know? ... all you are prepared to know? Don't forget that DxO don't give this measurement in isolation: it's a measure of the lenses performance on a particular camera. 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. If he is showing the effect of focal length on perspective then all he needs is the same focal length. He coud even do it on a blackboard. 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. He first explained why he can't/doesn't want to use the Mk 2 version of the lense. And then he goes on to explain can't/doesn't want to use the Mk 1. Completely different reasons and perfectly valid in both cases. Go back and watch it again. I see you have snipped the URL. Here it is again https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jva08HY6uLE t's obvious that he has an agenda. Having read what Floyd has written, I think that's right. 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****. For certain values of 'more'. 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''s not the first person to shoot portraits with a macro lens, although heaven knows why they should want to, unless they want to study skin pore structure. he was explaining that people should consider canon because only canon has a very specialized lens, *without* mentioning that nikon *also* has specialized lenses. You are playing fast and loose with his use of he word 'specialised'. 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. Has it occurred to you that *HE* has no use for that lens? 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. Not at all. I was merely commenting on the difficulty I have in distinguishing between Canon and Nikon in your shots that I have seen. 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. You would have been much more effective if you had dealt with specifics and without rancour in your first post. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Canon vz Nikon - This should stir up something
On Fri, 16 Jan 2015 09:17:02 -0800, Savageduck
wrote: 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. Yep. I'm still glad I posted it. It's got us arguing about technical aspects of photography. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Canon vz Nikon - This should stir up something
On Fri, 16 Jan 2015 11:34:01 -0500, nospam
wrote: 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. So do I. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Canon vz Nikon - This should stir up something
On 1/16/2015 12:27 AM, 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 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 Uhm. Test the Nikon 180200's focal lenght at 200. Measure it against the Nikon 200 f4 micro. 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. Uhm. I guess my 200mm micro doesn't exist. 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. -- PeterN |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Canon vz Nikon - This should stir up something
In article , PeterN
wrote: 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 Uhm. Test the Nikon 180200's focal lenght at 200. Measure it against the Nikon 200 f4 micro. um, go learn about internal focus lenses, the effect of which i explained in the very next line: focal length varies at shorter distances with internal focus, but it's rarely an issue at typical portrait distances, the types of photos he .... 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. Uhm. I guess my 200mm micro doesn't exist. i did forget about the 200/4 macro because i was going by this, which lists macro lenses separately: http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/#single-focal i also wrote f/4 when i meant f/2.8. he was talking about the canon 200mm f/2.8 (not f/4) which nikon doesn't have. instead, they have a 180 f/2.8 which is almost the same. the slightly wider view can be cropped and since nikon has higher resolution sensors, he's still ahead of the game. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Canon vz Nikon - This should stir up something
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... i see it didn't take long for an ad hominem. typical. Facts seem to bother you? It's okay for you to make false claims about what I know, but it's a horror when I point out that it is just you that does't... 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. In fact it is not at all uncommon to be able to spot images shot with the two 50mm f/1.8 lenses, though it isn't possible to determine if it was the Nikon or the Canon lens. 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. It is not minor at all. Just shoot a family gathering in the back yard on a bright summer day... and between the grass and the leaves in the trees, the bokeh of those lenses will stand out like the sore thumb it is. 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. Yes, just about the worst lens on the market... -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/ Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Canon vz Nikon - This should stir up something
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. he said the canon was 70-195mm which is a little bit of breathing. it's also wrong, as it's closer to 170 at the distances he's talking about, which is less than the nikon. the problem is that his comparison of the nikon was to 200mm. He said the Canon has no focus breathing at all. The statement that it is is actually a 70-195mm just refers to how Canon and all other manufacturers tend to round off to "standard" values and focual length that is close enough. The point is still that he knows damned well the Canon lens has focus breathing, he knows damned well he can't shoot in the 170-200mm range he claims is necessary for his work, and he lied through his teeth about it. And you don't seem to understand what it's all about, Alfie... 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... true. 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. the new nikon 70-200 breathes more than the canon and the older nikon 70-200. Listen carefully: it doesn't make any difference if it breaths or not! The Nikon is sharper than the Canon at close focusing distances, and that is the only point that is significant. -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/ Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Canon vz Nikon - This should stir up something
Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 16 Jan 2015 11:33:57 -0500, nospam wrote: 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. If he is showing the effect of focal length on perspective then all he needs is the same focal length. He coud even do it on a blackboard. If he is showing the effect of focal length on perspective... which is exactly no effect, he can use any two lenses of different focal lengths to demonstrate that there is no effect. When he goes on an on about that, it is pretty clear that he 1) knows better, and 2) is purposely trying to be deceptive. -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/ Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Canon vz Nikon - This should stir up something
nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN wrote: 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 Uhm. Test the Nikon 180200's focal lenght at 200. Measure it against the Nikon 200 f4 micro. um, go learn about internal focus lenses, the effect of which i explained in the very next line: focal length varies at shorter distances with internal focus, but it's rarely an issue at typical portrait distances, the types of photos he Not a very good job of explaining. What Peter needs to know is that his 200mm f/4 macro lens is not 200mm when close focused either. In that case it has nothing to do with Internal Focusing. The *definition* of the "focal length" of a lens is the distance from the projected image plane to the principle plane of the lens for an object that is an infinite distance away. In other words, when the lens is focused at infinity, the amount of extension *is* the focal length, by definition. But when the extension is increased to the point where the object focused on is 1:1 in size compared to the projected image, the calculated focal length is *always* shorter than that measured at infinity focus. I haven't worked it out for a 200mm lens, but the typical 105mm macro lens has an actual focal length of just about 75mm when focused close enough to get 1:1 magnification. My guess is that a 200mm macro lens will be about 150mm at 1:1 magnificaiton. -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/ Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Newsweek cover creates stir (Photoshop Hell) | Rich[_6_] | Digital SLR Cameras | 3 | June 30th 11 06:37 PM |
Stir crazy.... | [email protected] | 35mm Photo Equipment | 1 | January 4th 07 09:16 AM |
TESTS; Nikon D80, Canon Rebel XTi, Sony A100, Canon 30D | RichA | Digital SLR Cameras | 2 | October 14th 06 02:53 AM |
comparison photos - Canon 20D, Nikon D70s, Canon 1DMkII, Nikon D2X with FILM | gnnyman | Digital Photo Equipment For Sale | 0 | July 5th 05 12:09 AM |
Canon Elph SD110, Kodak EasyShare CX7430, Canon Powershots A75 and A80, and Nikon CoolPix 3200 | Shannon | Digital Photography | 8 | August 19th 04 10:03 PM |