A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Canon vz Nikon - This should stir up something



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old January 16th 15, 08:46 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default 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  
Old January 16th 15, 10:31 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default 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  
Old January 16th 15, 10:37 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default 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  
Old January 16th 15, 10:37 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default 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  
Old January 17th 15, 02:36 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,254
Default 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  
Old January 17th 15, 03:02 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default 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  
Old January 17th 15, 04:16 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Floyd L. Davidson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,138
Default 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  
Old January 17th 15, 04:25 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Floyd L. Davidson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,138
Default 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  
Old January 17th 15, 04:43 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Floyd L. Davidson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,138
Default 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  
Old January 17th 15, 04:57 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Floyd L. Davidson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,138
Default 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

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

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:06 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.