Canon digital bodies and Nikon lenses

In article , says...
DD wrote:


As far as your suggestion that the sensor in your D2X over heated,
causing colour shifts, I think you are full of it. What were you doing?
Was it the weather or the frequency of exposures that caused it to
"overheat"? That's an insane claim if ever I heard one.


Amazing... The well founded facts that digital sensors begin to produce
errors and degrade the images they capture as the temperature rises has
escaped you, has it? What do you think Dallas, I put it on the barbecue
or something?

That's a "fact" I have never heard discussed before.

After using DSLR's in EXTREME heat and humidity for four years now, I
have never once experienced the problem of colour shift, errors or image
degradation as a result of heat.

Durban is known to be one of the hottest climates in the African sub-
tropical region. Our average summer temperatures are in the high 30's
(ambient). Add between 6-10 for discomfort and you're talking heat.

Never heard a complaint from any DSLR user about colour shifts because
of heat.

--
DD
www.dallasdahms.com
Central Scrutinizer

Err, I think if you look a little closer Douglas, you'll find that it was
Steve Franklin's post you're commenting on. I'll accept your apology
whenever your ready. Is that how it goes Douglas?

"Douglas..." wrote in message
...
Cockpit Colin wrote:
Add my vote to those sentiments as well. I put it down to elevated
testosterone levels.

"Steve Franklin" wrote in message
...

Mate. I think you asked some reasonable questions. Unfortunately I don't
have the answers for you but I would like to apologise for the comments
of
some of the people here.

Probably a mixture of jealousy both intellectual and financial with
copious helpings of Scheudenfraude.


Pretty pathetic really.




How does it work Colin?
Walk into a store and buy the most expensive DSLR they have. Next buy
the 2 most expensive lenses you can find. and then shoot some pictures.

Ignore all the basics of Digital photography. Just use this camera as
you would a point and shoot and when the images look flat and fuzzy...
Claim the lenses are not up to Nikon lens quality and Digital haven't
yet equaled film? Is that how it goes Colin?

Exactly where does the jealousy fit in? Where, for that matter is there
any "Intellectual or financial" jealousy in stupidity? The reason he
hasn't addressed these issues with his supplier is probably because he
big noted himself as some sort of expert and doesn't want to look like a
dork by asking for help.

This guy bought a camera which even Professionals who own one have to
spend time coming to grips with about 200 variable settings Canon leave
at their lowest level to ship the cameras and doesn't bother to RTFM and
process his images yet is able to sit in judgment of the lenses I
personally know to be very similar to what Nikon have. Either this guy
is George Preddy in drag, some other notorious troll with a new name or
he really is a fool.

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

"G.T." wrote in message
...

"Cockpit Colin" wrote in message
...
Add my vote to those sentiments as well. I put it down to elevated
testosterone levels.

"Steve Franklin" wrote in message
...
Mate. I think you asked some reasonable questions. Unfortunately I
don't
have the answers for you but I would like to apologise for the
comments
of
some of the people here.

Probably a mixture of jealousy both intellectual and financial with
copious helpings of Scheudenfraude.


Pretty pathetic really.


What's pathetic are people who believe the trolls.

Greg

Greg, for god sake get off your high horse.

From time to time (actually, most of the time) humans are inclined to do
things that others (I hesitate to use the word "professionals" because
professionals are as professionals do, and I often don't see a lot of
professional behaviour here) wouldn't. Christ - I've made just about every
basic mistake possible in photography - including buying things with
expectations that the reality didn't stack up against. It doesn't bother me
to admit it and to ask for help - it doesn't bother others (such as the OP)
either. Perhaps some of the things we ask might seem stupid - perhaps
because of what was written or the way it was written it might even look
like a troll to you - but that doesn't mean it is.

For what it's worth, I've exchanged a couple of private eMails with the OP -
and if based on nothing else, I can attest to the man's sincerity.

How about cutting us a little slack?

First I wish to thank all those who provided helpful and well-meant
responses to my original post.

This week I took my camera to the original reseller and tested it against a
few other similar lenses. The 24mm lens is what it is. It simply isn't a
match for the Nikkor 28mm equivalent I use for night photography without
flash. This lens wasn't honestly my biggest concern as I can learn to live
with this difference in performance.

The biggest of my concerns was the 16-25mm zoom producing images with edge
distortion that had NOTHING to do with post processing or sharpening. I am
referring to huge, unacceptable geometric distortion around the edges.

After using a few others 16-35mm the reseller had in his inventory it was
apparent not only to me, but to a few specialists that the lens was
definitely flawed. I was able to exchange it for a different one that
produced images that were noticeably better. Do I think the performance is
the same ? NO. I still think the Nikkor 17-35mm is a better lens but the
difference now is really negligible.

Since some have questioned the reason why I didn't take more time to test
the lens, my concerns related to (1) the time since the date of purchase as
I wanted to exchange the lens at the reseller instead of allowing more time
to pass and have to send it to Canon for repair and (2) the fact that the
problem with distortion I reported here wasn't (as I very clearly stated)
anything that could be enhanced by post processing or sharpening but rather
some serious geometrical distortion beyond anything fixable in Photoshop.

This week I tested another one of Canon's lenses while at the reseller. The
135mm f/2.0 lens I had mentioned which is something I intend to use for
portraits (facial photos primarily). This is among one of the best lenses I
have used and just about one of the sharpest too.

My opinion was not a biased one and did not intend to spark the debate Canon
x Nikon. I have been a Nikon user for a long time but switched to Canon when
I realized it made better digital SLRs. My opinion of the two companies is
based on my personal experiences and I feel that while Canon makes better
cameras (electronics), Nikon makes better lenses (optics). However, I am
very happy with my camera and now with the lenses as well. They serve my
their primary purpose and are also excellent as something I can use for
photography outside of my work environment.

As one last comment I wish to thank again those who responded with helpful
and courteous messages to my original post. It is unfortunate to see that
these actually represent a small group of people. If there is one thing I
learned about using newsgroups is the censorship is a necessary thing.
Humans in general still haven't learned how to live in a truly democratic
environment where they know their limits and exercise their freedom of
speech with responsibility towards other peoples' rights. Newsgroups such as
this could be such a great place for the exchange of information and
knowledge. Such technology would have been a dream 30 to 40 years ago and I
am willing to bet that those who lived in those times would have given
everything for the opportunity to have access to such a vehicle of
information exchange. And yet, what I see here most is a group of stupid and
unnecessarily aggressive individuals who attack others for no apparent
reason just to use this forum as a pastime or as some form of therapy.

Such a shame that something with such potential just happens to be used in
such a wasteful and irresponsible manner !

Best regards to all those who responded with helpful replies.

Joseph

---

Dr. Joseph Chamberlain
Oral and Maxillofacial

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 11/10/05 5:28 PM, in article ,
"Cockpit Colin" wrote:


Greg, for god sake get off your high horse.

From time to time (actually, most of the time) humans are inclined to do
things that others (I hesitate to use the word "professionals" because
professionals are as professionals do, and I often don't see a lot of
professional behaviour here) wouldn't. Christ - I've made just about every
basic mistake possible in photography - including buying things with
expectations that the reality didn't stack up against. It doesn't bother me
to admit it and to ask for help - it doesn't bother others (such as the OP)
either. Perhaps some of the things we ask might seem stupid - perhaps
because of what was written or the way it was written it might even look
like a troll to you - but that doesn't mean it is.

For what it's worth, I've exchanged a couple of private eMails with the OP -
and if based on nothing else, I can attest to the man's sincerity.

How about cutting us a little slack?

Joseph, since you've had a chance to compare several 16-35 L lenses, how
does the one you settled on compare to mine?
http://www.pbase.com/skipm/image/50900668
http://www.pbase.com/skipm/image/50900669
http://www.pbase.com/skipm/image/50900673
http://www.pbase.com/skipm/image/50900679

I'm curious, because I haven't been able to compare the results from my lens
to others. I'm satisfied with it, overall, but not sure that it's the best
that can be done. I have heard, though, that the Nikon 17-35 is a better
lens.
--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
"Joseph Chamberlain, DDS" wrote in message
.. .

Skip M wrote:
Joseph, since you've had a chance to compare several 16-35 L lenses, how
does the one you settled on compare to mine?
http://www.pbase.com/skipm/image/50900668
http://www.pbase.com/skipm/image/50900669

Is the vignetting present with any 16mm lens on this camera or is it
peculiar to this particular lens?

Joseph,

For what it's worth, if you're ever in the market for a couple of
general-purpose lenses, I'd be happy to recomment the Canon 24-70 F2.8L USM
and the Canon 70-200 F2.8L IS USM.

Together they cover a wide range, and are capable of producing very sharp
images.

Cheers,

CC

"Joseph Chamberlain, DDS" wrote in message
.. .
First I wish to thank all those who provided helpful and well-meant
responses to my original post.

This week I took my camera to the original reseller and tested it against
a
few other similar lenses. The 24mm lens is what it is. It simply isn't a
match for the Nikkor 28mm equivalent I use for night photography without
flash. This lens wasn't honestly my biggest concern as I can learn to live
with this difference in performance.

The biggest of my concerns was the 16-25mm zoom producing images with edge
distortion that had NOTHING to do with post processing or sharpening. I am
referring to huge, unacceptable geometric distortion around the edges.

After using a few others 16-35mm the reseller had in his inventory it was
apparent not only to me, but to a few specialists that the lens was
definitely flawed. I was able to exchange it for a different one that
produced images that were noticeably better. Do I think the performance is
the same ? NO. I still think the Nikkor 17-35mm is a better lens but the
difference now is really negligible.

Since some have questioned the reason why I didn't take more time to test
the lens, my concerns related to (1) the time since the date of purchase
as
I wanted to exchange the lens at the reseller instead of allowing more
time
to pass and have to send it to Canon for repair and (2) the fact that the
problem with distortion I reported here wasn't (as I very clearly stated)
anything that could be enhanced by post processing or sharpening but
rather
some serious geometrical distortion beyond anything fixable in Photoshop.

This week I tested another one of Canon's lenses while at the reseller.
The
135mm f/2.0 lens I had mentioned which is something I intend to use for
portraits (facial photos primarily). This is among one of the best lenses
I
have used and just about one of the sharpest too.

My opinion was not a biased one and did not intend to spark the debate
Canon
x Nikon. I have been a Nikon user for a long time but switched to Canon
when
I realized it made better digital SLRs. My opinion of the two companies is
based on my personal experiences and I feel that while Canon makes better
cameras (electronics), Nikon makes better lenses (optics). However, I am
very happy with my camera and now with the lenses as well. They serve my
their primary purpose and are also excellent as something I can use for
photography outside of my work environment.

As one last comment I wish to thank again those who responded with helpful
and courteous messages to my original post. It is unfortunate to see that
these actually represent a small group of people. If there is one thing I
learned about using newsgroups is the censorship is a necessary thing.
Humans in general still haven't learned how to live in a truly democratic
environment where they know their limits and exercise their freedom of
speech with responsibility towards other peoples' rights. Newsgroups such
as
this could be such a great place for the exchange of information and
knowledge. Such technology would have been a dream 30 to 40 years ago and
I
am willing to bet that those who lived in those times would have given
everything for the opportunity to have access to such a vehicle of
information exchange. And yet, what I see here most is a group of stupid
and
unnecessarily aggressive individuals who attack others for no apparent
reason just to use this forum as a pastime or as some form of therapy.

Such a shame that something with such potential just happens to be used in
such a wasteful and irresponsible manner !

Best regards to all those who responded with helpful replies.

Joseph

---

Dr. Joseph Chamberlain
Oral and Maxillofacial

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--

On 11/10/05 5:28 PM, in article ,
"Cockpit Colin" wrote:


Greg, for god sake get off your high horse.

From time to time (actually, most of the time) humans are inclined to do
things that others (I hesitate to use the word "professionals" because
professionals are as professionals do, and I often don't see a lot of
professional behaviour here) wouldn't. Christ - I've made just about
every
basic mistake possible in photography - including buying things with
expectations that the reality didn't stack up against. It doesn't bother
me
to admit it and to ask for help - it doesn't bother others (such as the
OP)
either. Perhaps some of the things we ask might seem stupid - perhaps
because of what was written or the way it was written it might even look
like a troll to you - but that doesn't mean it is.

For what it's worth, I've exchanged a couple of private eMails with the
OP -
and if based on nothing else, I can attest to the man's sincerity.

How about cutting us a little slack?

Skip:

I am impressed with your images.

My new lens is behaving much better than the first one I had purchased.
Where I continue to see a problem with my lens when I compare it with yours
is the degree of curvature around the edges. I've taken some shots with my
wife where I was standing in front of a building and my wife took the shot.
When we got back home I looked at the shot and told her I did remember the
ramp in front of building. She said there wasn't a ramp. I didn't believe
her at first and decided to drive to where we had taken the photos and the
floor in front of the building is as flat as it can be. On the photo it
looks slanted as if the floor next to my right (the photographer's left) was
going down as a ramp. And it is funny because this is more accentuated on
the left (as one looks through the viewfinder) than it is to the right. It
is definitely better than what I had before, but still not up to the quality
I get with my Nikkor.

Your images that were taken at 16mm look much better than mine and I can
barely see any distortion around the edges. It doesn't even look like the
typical image of a 16mm lens. There is such a difference that I thought at
first you were using a camera with a reduced size sensor and only using the
center portion of the lens. But I have looked again and eliminated that
possibility as I see you shot it with a 5D which also uses a full frame
sensor. Are you somehow using one of those RAW converters such as DxO that
has correction algorithms built-in to correct lens' distortion ?

Every review I've read says the same thing: the Nikkor 17-35mm is a superior
lens than the Canon 16-35mm. But I am impressed with the results you got
with your lens.

To eliminate something on my part I am going to work very carefully on my
composition over the weekend and try to take photos with a tripod to test
this new lens I traded for the other one. I see your composition is very
well laid out and you tried to position yourself in such a way as to frame
your subject in the most ideal perpendicular orientation. I am going to do
the same over the weekend and let you know.

One thing I can tell you: the images you got at the 16mm end of you lens are
way better than the ones I've gotten (especially with the first lens) so
far.

Best regards,

Joseph

---

Dr. Joseph Chamberlain
Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 11/10/05 6:35 PM, in article HrTcf.108$7B.34@fed1read02, "Skip M"
wrote:

Joseph, since you've had a chance to compare several 16-35 L lenses, how
does the one you settled on compare to mine?
http://www.pbase.com/skipm/image/50900668
http://www.pbase.com/skipm/image/50900669
http://www.pbase.com/skipm/image/50900673
http://www.pbase.com/skipm/image/50900679

I'm curious, because I haven't been able to compare the results from my lens
to others. I'm satisfied with it, overall, but not sure that it's the best
that can be done. I have heard, though, that the Nikon 17-35 is a better
lens.

Colin:

Thanks again for the tips.

I really like your suggestions and like both lens as well.

The one I've had my eyes own is the 24-105mm but was quite disappointed with
the problems and Canon's recall because of the flaring issues. Hopefully
this lens will be out soon with the design revised and without the problems.
The one thing about this lens I find appealing over the 24-70mm f/2.8 you
mention is the extended range that makes it such a versatile lens to carry.
If I were to go to a place and could only take one lens I think this would
probably be the ideal lens to carry.

The 70-200mm lens is a great lens judging from all the reviews I've read so
far. The problem is the size and weigth. This is not the kind of lens one
can carry everywhere. In case I am to travel and carry this lens with me I
better start doing some serious bodybuilding

I've been told that the 70-200mm f/4 is actually quite a nice lens while
much smaller and lighter. Here is the US the demand seem to be such for this
lens that it is on backorder at BH Photo which is the largest reseller in
the country. The only drawbacks are the aperture (f/4 versus F/2.8 on the
lens you suggested) and the lack of IS which can be handy in many
situations.

Outside of these lenses, I have also been looking at something small to
carry with me when going on trips and simply planning to take leisure,
unpretentious photos. I've looked at both the 70-300mm DO lens and the new
70-300mm lens. Reviews on the net seem to provided mixed results. Some say
the DO is actually a great lens for what it is meant to do. The major
drawback is the flaring but this seem to happen only in situation where the
subject is backlit and light is coming head on through the lens. The other
lens have also received some bad as well as good reviews. Some say that
image quality is actually superior to the DO lens that costs almost twice as
much. The major complaints I've read on reviews of this lens are (1) the
slow focusing that sometimes seem to keep "hunting" the subject and the (2)
fact that as the lens focuses it rotates the outer ring which can be a
problem if you have a filter such as a polarizer attached. Although the DO
is more compact and has better focusing (reviews compare the speed of the
focusing mechanism to that found in the best L lens), I would tend to favor
image quality as the most important quality. Do you have any input or
suggestions you can share with me on these two lenses ?

In case anyone else wants to share opinions or point to sites that actually
offer information from real tests conducted on lenses I would greatly
appreciate it. There was a post in one of the newsgroups a few days ago
about a web site linked to www.imaging-resource.com that was dedicated to
the evaluation of lenses and used a very strict technical/scientific
protocol to test lenses. Does anyone know the address to this site or other
similar with tests and serious reviews on lenses ? I've tried Rob Galbraigth
and Fred Miranda but all I can find are posts placed by users and not real
technical tests.

Any help will be greatly appreciated.

Thank you again for the great suggestions, Colin. I am going to stop at my
local reseller over the weekend and take a closer look at both lenses you
suggested.

Best regards,

Joseph

---

Dr. Joseph Chamberlain
Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

On 11/10/05 8:13 PM, in article ,
"Cockpit Colin" wrote:

Joseph,

For what it's worth, if you're ever in the market for a couple of
general-purpose lenses, I'd be happy to recomment the Canon 24-70 F2.8L USM
and the Canon 70-200 F2.8L IS USM.

Together they cover a wide range, and are capable of producing very sharp
images.

Cheers,

CC

Joseph Chamberlain, DDS wrote:

As one last comment I wish to thank again those who responded with
helpful and courteous messages to my original post. It is
unfortunate to see that these actually represent a small group of
people. If there is one thing I learned about using newsgroups is
the censorship is a necessary thing. Humans in general still
haven't learned how to live in a truly democratic environment where
they know their limits and exercise their freedom of speech with
responsibility towards other peoples' rights. Newsgroups such as
this could be such a great place for the exchange of information and
knowledge. Such technology would have been a dream 30 to 40 years
ago and I am willing to bet that those who lived in those times
would have given everything for the opportunity to have access to
such a vehicle of information exchange. And yet, what I see here
most is a group of stupid and unnecessarily aggressive individuals
who attack others for no apparent reason just to use this forum as a
pastime or as some form of therapy.

Killfiles, Joseph. Learn to use them and Usenet will be a much
happier palce for you to inhabit.

Andrew.