Canon digital bodies and Nikon lenses

Dear group members:

I wanted to post some questions and first reviews on my new equipment to
obtain some feedback from you as well as have you share your own
experiences.

This past weekend I took my new Canon 1Ds Mark II out for the first real
serious shooting session and did some tests with two lenses I purchased
along with the camera. The lenses are the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM zoom and the
EF 24mm f/1.4L USM.

I am surprised with the low quality of the images I got from both lenses. I
am coming from film cameras and used two very similar lenses with my Nikon
Pro film body. My expectations for both Canon lenses were that they would
meet Nikon's quality since they are both "L" lenses and the price is about
the same but they don't even come close. My Nikon lenses are the 17-35mm
f/2.8D ED-IF AF-S Zoom-Nikkor and the 28mm f/1.4D AF Nikkor. The performance
on these lenses is just outstanding. The zoom is an all-around great lens
that I like to take with me to places where I may want to capture a large
area and may not have the room to stand back and embrace my landscape. The
28mm is a great lens for low light situations where I don't like to use
tripod and/or flash. They are both very sharp and even with the zoom opened
to 17mm coverage, there is the natural distortion found at this type of
focal length but the image is extremely sharp.

I thought it might be just my impression and decided to check a few sites. I
couldn't really find one that had objective tests with a specific technical
protocol for testing lenses, but found several sites with reviews from other
users and photographers such as Fred Miranda's site. It seems all reviews
corroborate my initial impressions about flaws with Canon lenses. The
16-35mm is claimed to be a disappointment but many who reviewed it and the
24 f/1.4 also has its flaws including lack of sharpness.

What is the deal with Canon lenses ? I can't believe I've just purchased a $
10,000 + digital set up with what should be the best high end digital SLR
system in the market and this is the type of photos I'm getting from these
lenses. My opinion about the camera couldn't be any better. It is indeed
very well built and a work of art in terms of engineering. The lenses, on
the other hand, don't seem to even come from the same manufacturer or to
have been designed with serious photographers in mind.

One of Fred Miranda's review compares the sharp quality of Nikkor's 28mm
lens to a Leica Vario-Elmar 21-35mm zoom lens. This is how good Nikon lenses
are.

The other option of lens I had in mind for my camera was the new EF 24-105mm
f/4L IS USM lens because of its versatility and the ability to use it as the
preferred lens for those photo shooting situations where you can only take
one lens with you. After searching for this lens I found out that it has
been pulled from the market because of some serious design flaws that caused
flaring and other problems.

Canon could follow Sony's approach. Since they realize they don't have the
expertise required to design and build truly professional grade lenses, they
went to Carl Zeiss. Now that Kyocera decided to discontinue its Contax line
of cameras and is only keeping the Yashica line, Canon could very easily
approach Carl Zeiss to produce its lenses as Kyocera did in the past.

It is hard to accept that after a $ 10,000+ purchase the results I'm
obtaining are not matching those I was able to obtain from my Nikon $ 2,000
film setup. Maybe my expectations were too high. Maybe I was under the wrong
impression when I presumed that Canon's lenses were of similar quality to
those made by Nikon.

The bottom line is that one company gives you great lenses but still can't
seem to develop a decent body with full frame sensor that doesn't change the
characteristics of all the lenses you invested your money on. The other
produces great bodies with outstanding resolution, full frame sensor and
great overall performance but the lenses are of average rather than
professional grade image quality.

It seems that digital photography is not ready for prime time yet. Close -
but no cigar !

I am sorry for the long post - just needed to share my frustrations.

Best regards,

Joseph

---

Dr. Joseph Chamberlain
Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

"Joseph Chamberlain, DDS" wrote in message
.. .
Dear group members:

I wanted to post some questions and first reviews on my new equipment to
obtain some feedback from you as well as have you share your own
experiences.

This past weekend I took my new Canon 1Ds Mark II out for the first real
serious shooting session and did some tests with two lenses I purchased
along with the camera. The lenses are the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM zoom and
the
EF 24mm f/1.4L USM.


I thought it might be just my impression and decided to check a few sites.
I
couldn't really find one that had objective tests with a specific
technical
protocol for testing lenses, but found several sites with reviews from
other
users and photographers such as Fred Miranda's site. It seems all reviews
corroborate my initial impressions about flaws with Canon lenses. The
16-35mm is claimed to be a disappointment but many who reviewed it and the
24 f/1.4 also has its flaws including lack of sharpness.


More money than brains, I see. Spend thousands of dollars on something and
then read the reviews. Bravo!

Greg

Just curious: Why buy the Canon when you already had some excellent Nikon
lenses? I don't want to get into the Canon vs. Nikon debate, but many of us
chose a digital body based on what we already had in the way of equipment.


"Joseph Chamberlain, DDS" wrote in message
.. .
Dear group members:

I wanted to post some questions and first reviews on my new equipment to
obtain some feedback from you as well as have you share your own
experiences.

This past weekend I took my new Canon 1Ds Mark II out for the first real
serious shooting session and did some tests with two lenses I purchased
along with the camera. The lenses are the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM zoom and
the
EF 24mm f/1.4L USM.

I am surprised with the low quality of the images I got from both lenses.
I
am coming from film cameras and used two very similar lenses with my Nikon
Pro film body. My expectations for both Canon lenses were that they would
meet Nikon's quality since they are both "L" lenses and the price is about
the same but they don't even come close. My Nikon lenses are the 17-35mm
f/2.8D ED-IF AF-S Zoom-Nikkor and the 28mm f/1.4D AF Nikkor. The
performance
on these lenses is just outstanding. The zoom is an all-around great lens
that I like to take with me to places where I may want to capture a large
area and may not have the room to stand back and embrace my landscape. The
28mm is a great lens for low light situations where I don't like to use
tripod and/or flash. They are both very sharp and even with the zoom
opened
to 17mm coverage, there is the natural distortion found at this type of
focal length but the image is extremely sharp.

I thought it might be just my impression and decided to check a few sites.
I
couldn't really find one that had objective tests with a specific
technical
protocol for testing lenses, but found several sites with reviews from
other
users and photographers such as Fred Miranda's site. It seems all reviews
corroborate my initial impressions about flaws with Canon lenses. The
16-35mm is claimed to be a disappointment but many who reviewed it and the
24 f/1.4 also has its flaws including lack of sharpness.

What is the deal with Canon lenses ? I can't believe I've just purchased a
$
10,000 + digital set up with what should be the best high end digital SLR
system in the market and this is the type of photos I'm getting from these
lenses. My opinion about the camera couldn't be any better. It is indeed
very well built and a work of art in terms of engineering. The lenses, on
the other hand, don't seem to even come from the same manufacturer or to
have been designed with serious photographers in mind.

One of Fred Miranda's review compares the sharp quality of Nikkor's 28mm
lens to a Leica Vario-Elmar 21-35mm zoom lens. This is how good Nikon
lenses
are.

The other option of lens I had in mind for my camera was the new EF
24-105mm
f/4L IS USM lens because of its versatility and the ability to use it as
the
preferred lens for those photo shooting situations where you can only take
one lens with you. After searching for this lens I found out that it has
been pulled from the market because of some serious design flaws that
caused
flaring and other problems.

Canon could follow Sony's approach. Since they realize they don't have the
expertise required to design and build truly professional grade lenses,
they
went to Carl Zeiss. Now that Kyocera decided to discontinue its Contax
line
of cameras and is only keeping the Yashica line, Canon could very easily
approach Carl Zeiss to produce its lenses as Kyocera did in the past.

It is hard to accept that after a $ 10,000+ purchase the results I'm
obtaining are not matching those I was able to obtain from my Nikon $
2,000
film setup. Maybe my expectations were too high. Maybe I was under the
wrong
impression when I presumed that Canon's lenses were of similar quality to
those made by Nikon.

The bottom line is that one company gives you great lenses but still can't
seem to develop a decent body with full frame sensor that doesn't change
the
characteristics of all the lenses you invested your money on. The other
produces great bodies with outstanding resolution, full frame sensor and
great overall performance but the lenses are of average rather than
professional grade image quality.

It seems that digital photography is not ready for prime time yet. Close -
but no cigar !

I am sorry for the long post - just needed to share my frustrations.

Best regards,

Joseph

---

Dr. Joseph Chamberlain
Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

On 11/8/05 7:52 PM, in article , "Sheldon"
wrote:

Just curious: Why buy the Canon when you already had some excellent Nikon
lenses? I don't want to get into the Canon vs. Nikon debate, but many of us
chose a digital body based on what we already had in the way of equipment.


Sheldon:

I really like the camera body and think it is a superbly engineered piece of
equipment. I don't think the lenses match the camera. I had a lot of money
invested on Nikkor lenses but decided to switch to Canon when I realized I
wasn't being able to get a good setup for close-up medical photography using
Nikon equipment. I have used Canon for medical photography and been happy
with their equipment compared to what Nikon offers for the same type of
application. This should show how open minded I am about new equipment and
how unbiased my opinion is in regards to either company. My switch to Canon
was motivated by the fact that while Canon offered two macro flashes
(MR-14EX and MT-24EX) that sync with its digital SLR bodies in auto TTL
mode, Nikon doesn't even offer one (it is about to introduce its first one
now along with the new D200). Also whenever I needed to obtain magnification
superior to 1:1 (as is sometimes necessary when photographing biopsy
samples, for instance) with Nikon equipment I was forced to use a bellows, a
bellows extension, double cable release, an adapter ring, a lens mounted in
reverse at the end of the bellows, compensate for light loss with the
bellows and many other technical issues. It was a mess. All this done
without the benefit of immediate feedback one usually gets from using a
digital camera. Canon solved this problem and simplified this whole process
by introducing one single lens that takes care of all these issues: the MP-E
65mm f/2.8 1x-5x macro lens. This lens achieves the same level of
magnification achieved on the first stage of a clinical laboratory
microscope (5x). This is truly amazing.

I now found myself using a Canon EOS 10D setup mostly for professional
close-up medical photography and using Nikon for my personal shooting.
However, the time came when I needed to move on to something with more
resolution. The advantage of a camera such as the EOS 1Ds Mark II is that
the image displayed on a computer screen can be magnified until it reaches
100% the original number of pixels and the image provides the type of
enlargement that is similar to performing surgery with the aid of a surgical
microscope. This is fantastic for documentation as well as for reviewing
post-operative results. Cropping also allows you to display smaller details
when you wish to prepare material for a lecture, for instance.

Since I invested on a new Canon body and already had the macro flashes and
lenses for my professional photography, I thought I could also purchase a
few lenses and move from my decent but lower resolution Nikon D70 to using
the 1Ds Mk II as an all around camera. The lenses I used the most with my
film cameras were the ones that the D70 rendered useless because of the
typical 1.5x magnification factor - the 17-35mm and the 28mm f/1.4 for night
flash-less photos. This is the reason I chose these two Canon lenses - they
represent the lenses I use the most outside of the macro lenses which I use
everyday for work.

Best regards,

Joseph

---

Dr. Joseph Chamberlain
Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

Thanks for the explanation. Makes plenty of sense to me. Too bad those
"personal" lenses aren't working out for you.


"Joseph Chamberlain, DDS" wrote in message
.. .
On 11/8/05 7:52 PM, in article ,
"Sheldon"
wrote:

Just curious: Why buy the Canon when you already had some excellent
Nikon
lenses? I don't want to get into the Canon vs. Nikon debate, but many of
us
chose a digital body based on what we already had in the way of
equipment.


Sheldon:

I really like the camera body and think it is a superbly engineered piece
of
equipment. I don't think the lenses match the camera. I had a lot of money
invested on Nikkor lenses but decided to switch to Canon when I realized I
wasn't being able to get a good setup for close-up medical photography
using
Nikon equipment. I have used Canon for medical photography and been happy
with their equipment compared to what Nikon offers for the same type of
application. This should show how open minded I am about new equipment and
how unbiased my opinion is in regards to either company. My switch to
Canon
was motivated by the fact that while Canon offered two macro flashes
(MR-14EX and MT-24EX) that sync with its digital SLR bodies in auto TTL
mode, Nikon doesn't even offer one (it is about to introduce its first one
now along with the new D200). Also whenever I needed to obtain
magnification
superior to 1:1 (as is sometimes necessary when photographing biopsy
samples, for instance) with Nikon equipment I was forced to use a bellows,
a
bellows extension, double cable release, an adapter ring, a lens mounted
in
reverse at the end of the bellows, compensate for light loss with the
bellows and many other technical issues. It was a mess. All this done
without the benefit of immediate feedback one usually gets from using a
digital camera. Canon solved this problem and simplified this whole
process
by introducing one single lens that takes care of all these issues: the
MP-E
65mm f/2.8 1x-5x macro lens. This lens achieves the same level of
magnification achieved on the first stage of a clinical laboratory
microscope (5x). This is truly amazing.

I now found myself using a Canon EOS 10D setup mostly for professional
close-up medical photography and using Nikon for my personal shooting.
However, the time came when I needed to move on to something with more
resolution. The advantage of a camera such as the EOS 1Ds Mark II is that
the image displayed on a computer screen can be magnified until it reaches
100% the original number of pixels and the image provides the type of
enlargement that is similar to performing surgery with the aid of a
surgical
microscope. This is fantastic for documentation as well as for reviewing
post-operative results. Cropping also allows you to display smaller
details
when you wish to prepare material for a lecture, for instance.

Since I invested on a new Canon body and already had the macro flashes and
lenses for my professional photography, I thought I could also purchase a
few lenses and move from my decent but lower resolution Nikon D70 to using
the 1Ds Mk II as an all around camera. The lenses I used the most with my
film cameras were the ones that the D70 rendered useless because of the
typical 1.5x magnification factor - the 17-35mm and the 28mm f/1.4 for
night
flash-less photos. This is the reason I chose these two Canon lenses -
they
represent the lenses I use the most outside of the macro lenses which I
use
everyday for work.

Best regards,

Joseph

---

Dr. Joseph Chamberlain
Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

Joseph Chamberlain, DDS wrote:
Dear group members:

I wanted to post some questions and first reviews on my new equipment to
obtain some feedback from you as well as have you share your own
experiences.

This past weekend I took my new Canon 1Ds Mark II out for the first real
serious shooting session and did some tests with two lenses I purchased
along with the camera. The lenses are the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM zoom and the
EF 24mm f/1.4L USM.

I am surprised with the low quality of the images I got from both lenses. I
am coming from film cameras and used two very similar lenses with my Nikon
Pro film body. My expectations for both Canon lenses were that they would
meet Nikon's quality since they are both "L" lenses and the price is about
the same but they don't even come close. My Nikon lenses are the 17-35mm
f/2.8D ED-IF AF-S Zoom-Nikkor and the 28mm f/1.4D AF Nikkor. The performance
on these lenses is just outstanding. The zoom is an all-around great lens
that I like to take with me to places where I may want to capture a large
area and may not have the room to stand back and embrace my landscape. The
28mm is a great lens for low light situations where I don't like to use
tripod and/or flash. They are both very sharp and even with the zoom opened
to 17mm coverage, there is the natural distortion found at this type of
focal length but the image is extremely sharp.

I thought it might be just my impression and decided to check a few sites. I
couldn't really find one that had objective tests with a specific technical
protocol for testing lenses, but found several sites with reviews from other
users and photographers such as Fred Miranda's site. It seems all reviews
corroborate my initial impressions about flaws with Canon lenses. The
16-35mm is claimed to be a disappointment but many who reviewed it and the
24 f/1.4 also has its flaws including lack of sharpness.

What is the deal with Canon lenses ? I can't believe I've just purchased a $
10,000 + digital set up with what should be the best high end digital SLR
system in the market and this is the type of photos I'm getting from these
lenses. My opinion about the camera couldn't be any better. It is indeed
very well built and a work of art in terms of engineering. The lenses, on
the other hand, don't seem to even come from the same manufacturer or to
have been designed with serious photographers in mind.

One of Fred Miranda's review compares the sharp quality of Nikkor's 28mm
lens to a Leica Vario-Elmar 21-35mm zoom lens. This is how good Nikon lenses
are.

The other option of lens I had in mind for my camera was the new EF 24-105mm
f/4L IS USM lens because of its versatility and the ability to use it as the
preferred lens for those photo shooting situations where you can only take
one lens with you. After searching for this lens I found out that it has
been pulled from the market because of some serious design flaws that caused
flaring and other problems.

Canon could follow Sony's approach. Since they realize they don't have the
expertise required to design and build truly professional grade lenses, they
went to Carl Zeiss. Now that Kyocera decided to discontinue its Contax line
of cameras and is only keeping the Yashica line, Canon could very easily
approach Carl Zeiss to produce its lenses as Kyocera did in the past.

It is hard to accept that after a $ 10,000+ purchase the results I'm
obtaining are not matching those I was able to obtain from my Nikon $ 2,000
film setup. Maybe my expectations were too high. Maybe I was under the wrong
impression when I presumed that Canon's lenses were of similar quality to
those made by Nikon.

The bottom line is that one company gives you great lenses but still can't
seem to develop a decent body with full frame sensor that doesn't change the
characteristics of all the lenses you invested your money on. The other
produces great bodies with outstanding resolution, full frame sensor and
great overall performance but the lenses are of average rather than
professional grade image quality.

It seems that digital photography is not ready for prime time yet. Close -
but no cigar !

I am sorry for the long post - just needed to share my frustrations.

Best regards,

Joseph

---

Dr. Joseph Chamberlain
Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery


How much do you want for this load of rubbish you bought?
I'm no fan of Canon but I might be convinced to help you out by taking
it off your hands so you can buy a piece of Nikon crap and discover the
same thing... That you shouldn't be playing with Professional
Photographers equipment and expect to get the same results they do.

For Christ sake man, half the world's magazine cover shooters use this
gear. If you can't get a decent picture, just remember the old saying...
"A poor tradesman always blames his tools".

Posting negative remarks about brands here will get you nothing but
ridicule. Why? Because the photographers here all know that Canon is
absolutely the best quality, most reliable load of useless digital crap
anyone could ever own. You telling them that is preaching to the converted.

Despite this knowledge, some still manage to run their business with
Canon gear a lot less advanced than your outfit. The manage to take
award winning photographs with them and generally make do with cameras
and lenses you'd probably pass up because they weren't the "best"...
Whatever that means .

Before you continue on with your trolling posts, either learn how to
take a photo or take the camera back and buy a Polaroid.

--
Douglas...
Specifications are good to read but
When it comes to judging Digital Cameras...
I'm in the "how do the pictures look" category.

"Douglas..." wrote in message
...


How much do you want for this load of rubbish you bought?
I'm no fan of Canon but I might be convinced to help you out by taking it
off your hands so you can buy a piece of Nikon crap and discover the same
thing... That you shouldn't be playing with Professional Photographers
equipment and expect to get the same results they do.

For Christ sake man, half the world's magazine cover shooters use this
gear. If you can't get a decent picture, just remember the old saying...
"A poor tradesman always blames his tools".

Posting negative remarks about brands here will get you nothing but
ridicule. Why? Because the photographers here all know that Canon is
absolutely the best quality, most reliable load of useless digital crap
anyone could ever own. You telling them that is preaching to the
converted.

Despite this knowledge, some still manage to run their business with Canon
gear a lot less advanced than your outfit. The manage to take award
winning photographs with them and generally make do with cameras and
lenses you'd probably pass up because they weren't the "best"... Whatever
that means .

Before you continue on with your trolling posts, either learn how to take
a photo or take the camera back and buy a Polaroid.

--
Douglas...
Specifications are good to read but
When it comes to judging Digital Cameras...
I'm in the "how do the pictures look" category.

Douglas, you've given me "newsgroup whiplash." I've never had the
experience of being insulted and pleased by the same post... grin

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

Oh, yeah, and laughing, too! g

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
look" category.

Skip M wrote:
Oh, yeah, and laughing, too! g

Laugh this one Skip...
The Canon hater in me absolutely hates *me* today. I just ordered a 5D!
God help this poor sole who is once again corrupted by the demon EOS. Is
there no help for me?

Shock, Horror... I just dusted off my sole remaining Canon camera. an
old EOS 1N and behold... It still works just like the day I threw it in
the box. This incredibly durable piece of hardware will from this day
forth keep me company everywhere I go, such is it's reliability. Ability
to work in obscene temperatures and still take impeccable pictures. Not
to mention survive the odd dropping!

Ahrrr Nikon lied to me. It worked so well all during winter and then
when the first really hot day arrives and I had to use it in the sun, it
heated up it's sensor, started capturing colours that weren't there.

I put it in the fridge with all the beer and champers for half an hour
while I shot some of the Wedding with a E300 (is there no sin?) and then
got the thing from the fridge and shot the formals before it sobered up.

Just as well this Wedding was in the grounds of a Pub! Prey for me Skip,
my sole is corrupted again. :-)

--
Douglas...
Specifications are good to read but
When it comes to judging Digital Cameras...
I'm in the "how do the pictures look" category.

In article ,
says...
Skip M wrote:
Oh, yeah, and laughing, too! g

Laugh this one Skip...
The Canon hater in me absolutely hates *me* today. I just ordered a 5D!
God help this poor sole who is once again corrupted by the demon EOS. Is
there no help for me?

Shock, Horror... I just dusted off my sole remaining Canon camera. an
old EOS 1N and behold... It still works just like the day I threw it in
the box. This incredibly durable piece of hardware will from this day
forth keep me company everywhere I go, such is it's reliability. Ability
to work in obscene temperatures and still take impeccable pictures. Not
to mention survive the odd dropping!

Ahrrr Nikon lied to me. It worked so well all during winter and then
when the first really hot day arrives and I had to use it in the sun, it
heated up it's sensor, started capturing colours that weren't there.

I put it in the fridge with all the beer and champers for half an hour
while I shot some of the Wedding with a E300 (is there no sin?) and then
got the thing from the fridge and shot the formals before it sobered up.

Just as well this Wedding was in the grounds of a Pub! Prey for me Skip,
my sole is corrupted again. :-)

Have you totally lost it?

Really Doug, it's no wonder you get flamed so often. Posts like these
only serve to show that its not photography you are interested in, but
playing with us!

How did you discover this Nikon colour capturing problem during the
shoot? Do you carry around a laptop with you and examine every shot in
RSE during the wedding? You can't possibly assess colour using the LCD
on a DSLR.

BTW, if colour accuracy is so vitally important to you, why not just
stick to the technology that has been keeping photographers happy since
midway through last century: colour film. Pick one, shoot it, stick with
it.

--
DD
www.dallasdahms.com
Central Scrutinizer