Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 106

Thread: Beauties of Nikon versus Canon (Film + Digital)

  1. #81

    Default

    Originally posted by kongg
    LOL!!! IMHO I think it will be hilarious to see a Leica R lens on an EOS(or Nikon) body!!! Btw, if there are any snapshots of this combination, pls post as I would like to see!!
    Try this !

  2. #82
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Ang Mo Kio outskirts
    Posts
    754

    Default

    Interesting, but looks abit weird. I wonder if anyone here in Spore tried this b4.

  3. #83

    Default

    Originally posted by kongg
    Interesting, but looks abit weird. I wonder if anyone here in Spore tried this b4.
    Kongg you go get it then I lend you my Canon to test it out lor....

  4. #84
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Ang Mo Kio outskirts
    Posts
    754

    Default

    I may spoil yr cam if I use it. So thanx anyway.........

  5. #85

    Default

    Originally posted by kongg
    I may spoil yr cam if I use it. So thanx anyway.........
    hhheee..
    *Damm... Fail to trick you to pay for servicing*

    Never mind.. got chance one................

  6. #86
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    2,464

    Default

    Originally posted by kongg
    LOL!!! IMHO I think it will be hilarious to see a Leica R lens on an EOS(or Nikon) body!!! Btw, if there are any snapshots of this combination, pls post as I would like to see!!
    Hi

    sometime last year, a friend had such an adapter, and stuck an old beaten up 50mm Leica R lens to my D30. He took a few shots, mostly portraits of a female friend. (i learnt that day the best excuse to take photo of girls - "er i'm testing this lens and i want to see if it can render u as pretty as u are in real life........." ) Can't remember which CD i placed those shots in, but i'm sure i never deleted those shots.

    yes the combination looks weird.

    And you lose all automatic metering (including the semi automated metering modes) since the lens no longer feeds aperture information to the camera. And of course, you lose AF.

    in fact, i've read about someone using R lenses consistently on his EOS 1D, with one of Canon's interchangeable focusing screen with split image focusing. There you go.......the best of both worlds?

    here's a FAQ on using Leica R lenses with Canon digital SLRs
    David Teo
    View my work and blog at http://www.5stonesphoto.com/blog

  7. #87
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    L2TPYSG
    Posts
    4,057

    Default

    wah kao 1D with manual everything? might as well get a digital back.. but yeah hor still cheaper than these
    "I'm... dreaming... of a wide... angle~
    Just like the ones I used to know~"

  8. #88
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,911

    Default

    Heh. You just had to tempt me.

    Originally posted by Red Dawn
    why is everyone going gaga over this new Kodak?
    Didn't you catch the about being a higher resolution EOS1Ds at half the price?

    there has been no image samples, so the quality is quite unknown. you would think if it's really shipping in Dec by now there would be samples.

    Actually, December is still about 2 months off. The EOS1Ds is shipping now already. There were no samples from that camera 2 months ago. Image quality was completely unknown 2 months ago. If the EOS1Ds really is shipping now, there would have been samples 2 months ago, by your logic. And there weren't.

    All I'm saying is, your rationale doesn't really hold sound water. Sure the Kodak has yielded no samples, but at half the price it can't be far off. It starts with more pixels than the 1Ds as well, and no anti-aliasing filter which is anything promises better image quality.

    Again, to my original point. Yes the 1Ds is a very very nice camera. So lets jump ship to Canon. But how many people out there in Clubsnap need a 1Ds and more importantly can afford one. The point being, yes Canon have very nice IS superteles that are that lovely shade of white. And DO. Etc etc. But if you don't intend to buy one, it really shouldn't enter into your factoring equation.

    The difference is the Kodak is relatively affordable, and not much over the pricing point of the Canon D60 or Nikon D100 of which many Clubsnappers already own.

    The camera I wouldn't go gaga over is the EOS1Ds. Because I don't happen to have that amount of money to throw at it. But I do at the DCS14n, and that's as good a reason as any to get excited over a camera. Any camera. A DCS14n in hand is worth two EOS1Ds cameras in the bush.

    And also, where exactly have I gone gaga over the new Kodak?

    Also, it's based on the F80 body, which puts it in a different class from the 1V based body of the 1Ds, with all the usual pro body benefits - faster AF, weather sealed all metal body etc etc etc.......

    Okay. Is that worth S$6000 to you? It's not to me. Even in my line of work, I can make do with the AF on the F80. What do you do that needs more AF power than what I do? If it is worth S$6000 to you, then fair play. In fact I highly suspect in two months, RD will be the proud owner of an EOS1Ds, and it wasn't just this thread that prompted that observation! More power to him if so.

    and it doesn't mean Canon wouldn't slash it price either closer to shipping date. In fact, they have a history of doing that in the face of competition (witness the D60 / D100 price war)

    The D100 is still cheaper than the Canon. And the EOS1D price was never really slashed.

    so whether the Kodak is really a better value, well we'll just have to wait and see.....

    Definitely. I never said it was. The only thing I said in my original post about the DCS14n was in response to Erwin's wish for a good camera priced between the D60/D100 and the EOS1Ds. Well the EOS1Ds certainly doesn't fit that description, the Kodak on paper at least undeniably does. So how that constitutes going gaga I have no idea!

    but if Contax refuses to supply them the glass, who else are they going to get it from?

    I know, I made that point as much myself. But the issue is, and in fact I wasn't referring to you at all in terms of the superiority of German glass (although I was referring to you in the migrating from Canon to German glass). Your point is exactly what I'm trying to get across. Clearly, Japanese glass is good enough for the engineers and designers at Hasselblad. Surely it should be enough for most average users.

    Canon uses 3 Aspherical Elements plus 2 UD (Ultra low dispersion) glass made of fluorite, so i don't thinkthe cost is that low either.

    Eh, you find that complement in the average S$400 Sigma lens! The quesiton is, what kind of Aspherical.

    Seriously though, we're missing the point. The point is, are Nikon lenses really more expensive than Canon ones? Before you start shouting about all the examples that have been thrown about, hear me out.

    We've been singling out the 17-35 class lenses and 28-70 lenses for special mention.

    The thing is, hopping over to AJ Purdy's, a good online retailer here in the UK, reveals the following prices (in pounds sterling):

    Nikon Canon Lens
    1225 1239 17-35
    1225 1149 28-70
    1279 1499 80-200 (Canon version with IS).

    Note that Grays has confirmed the price of the Nikon VR at 1500. Grays are notorious for being pricey because they are service oriented (salespeople deal with you in comfy chairs and sitting around a table).

    The point I'm trying to get across is. On those raw figures alone, Nikon is actually cheaper in two of the three staple zoom lenses. Even accounting for VR as explained above. But more importantly, look at the price differences. By the time you've outfit yourself with a DSLR and a trio of f2.8 zooms, are you really going to be quibbling over a few tens?

    Next point. A quick jump to B&H shows that the Canon 28-70 is significantly cheaper there than the Nikon equivalent. As I believe the situation is in Singapore as people have shown. So the question to ask yourself now is, if Nikon UK can price the lenses about on par with Canon equivalents, then how come Nikon SG and Nikon USA can't or won't?

    Is the Nikon 17-35 all metal?

    Besides, you also seem to suggest that the 17-35L is a sub-par performer. So what does it matter if it's slightly cheaper and made of all metal (the Nikon is, incidentally, taken in the spirit of the original statement), if the pictures aren't up to it. I'm not saying they aren't; but as before, there comes a point in time when cost isn't the be all and end all. Especially for a few tens.

    I'm not knocking Canon. I'm not championing Nikon, or Kodak for that matter. I'm just responding to this idea that Red Dawn's developed that I've gone gaga over the DCS14n.

    In fact, wasn't it you that I was telling how impressed I was about the EOS1Ds. And then you were the one who reminded me about the DCS14n!

    Hope this doesn't start the flames going.

  9. #89
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    2,464

    Default

    Originally posted by Jed
    Heh. You just had to tempt me.
    hahaha.....


    Didn't you catch the about being a higher resolution EOS1Ds at half the price?
    yeah, but like i raised the example of the D60 / D100 price slashing, the 1Ds price is not cast in stone. Of course, neither is the Kodak, which makes it an open game. Good for us consumers.

    If it were dropped to within USD $1k of the Kodak, would the Kodak still be the better buy for a complete new user with no existing lenses and with the dough to spare? i ask this qn with reference to the different pricing of the 2 bodies. As i will say later (below), my original post has nothing to do with whether the Canon or Nikon sytem is more expensive.

    IMHO, the price difference between the 2 systems is not significantly high enough to be used as a reason for choosing one over the other. now if one is choosing the Contax SLR system vs a Nikon SLR system, then the cost of the system definitely comes into the equation............


    Actually, December is still about 2 months off. The EOS1Ds is shipping now already. There were no samples from that camera 2 months ago. Image quality was completely unknown 2 months ago. If the EOS1Ds really is shipping now, there would have been samples 2 months ago, by your logic. And there weren't.
    i may be wrong, but i'm sure the EOS 1Ds was made official at PhotoKina 2002, (Sep) and is still NOT shipping yet. Those review sites are getting production units, not actual shipping units.

    i think actual shipping is December, with general availability only by March of 2003....


    All I'm saying is, your rationale doesn't really hold sound water. Sure the Kodak has yielded no samples, but at half the price it can't be far off. It starts with more pixels than the 1Ds as well, and no anti-aliasing filter which is anything promises better image quality.
    yeah, maybe, but still unknown quality......

    even Canon and Nikon didn't necessarily get everything right initially (the Nikon D1 flash and banding problems and EOS 1D's high ISO banding problem). Kodak may have plenty of experience with DSLRS, but they're now dealing with a chip not done by them. And the chip supplier seems to be a new player in this camera sensor thingy...(i may be wrong about this).


    Again, to my original point. Yes the 1Ds is a very very nice camera. So lets jump ship to Canon.
    er my original post has nothing to do with switching systems. it has to do with the Kodak offering....


    The difference is the Kodak is relatively affordable, and not much over the pricing point of the Canon D60 or Nikon D100 of which many Clubsnappers already own.
    huh? according to dpreview, "The camera should be available in December with an expected street price of US$4,000".

    ok let's do an analysis of the prices. I'm not going to talk about needs here, cos it's obvious none of us really need a new DSLR. Similarly if u can shoot with a D1x, you obviously don't really need the D2 as well - at least not for newspapers.

    So we all WANT a new DSLR let's take a look at the prices....

    The D60 or Nikon D100 is US$2000, maybe lower. That's twice the price. i'm sure that price difference is significant to a lot of Clubsnappers. Certainly it is to me.

    Now for reference, the EOS 1D when it first came out was US$5000. That's close to the Kodak price. It was a breakthrough in its time (and probably still is), pro spec body of the 1v, even upping the shooting rate of its film based brother, in RAW mode no less. It was a sports shooter's dream.

    wat breakthrough does the Kodak offer other than more megapixels and a full frame sensor? Wat is worth twice the price? the name Kodak?

    If i'm a Nikon user with the D100, i'll wait one year, and get a DSLR with twice the megapixels, and maybe full frame as well. And maybe pay even less! The transition from the D30 to the D60 is such an example - more megapixels, less money.

    As if u think about it, the Kodak and the D100 are both based on the same core F80 (?) body, with probably the same AF and metering modules etc. So essentially u're paying TWICE the amount just for the additional megapixels and having full frame, with a few better features eg firewire support. Come to think of it, how many of us actually connect the camera to the PC to transfer images? So even the firewire feature is something we can really do without.

    Oh yes, it has GPS support. Yeah we really need to record where we are when we take photos don't we....

    Both only takes DTTL flash (from released specs). What else is improved?

    Now to summarise, my point is the 1D was a real breakthrough with its asking price of US$5000. Canon is probably going to slash the price of the 1Ds when it's finally released to somewhere close to the Kodak.

    Cathay told me the price of the 1Ds will probably hover around SGD $12k. Assuming they are right, that's SGD $3k more than the initial price of the 1D, which is around SGD $9k. That's about US$1.5k more.

    I suspect the final price of the 1Ds will be closer to the 1D. Which will make the Kodak look bad in comparison.

    Even if they didn't, the 1D offers true pro level specs compared to the Kodak, which basically is a full frame D100 with more megapixels.


    And also, where exactly have I gone gaga over the new Kodak?
    haha.......u KNOW who i was referring to right?


    Okay. Is that worth S$6000 to you? It's not to me. Even in my line of work, I can make do with the AF on the F80. What do you do that needs more AF power than what I do?


    as stated above, i'm strictly comparing the 2 camera bodies and their relative pricing. i'm certainly not getting either one, not anytime soon.

    In fact I highly suspect in two months, RD will be the proud owner of an EOS1Ds, and it wasn't just this thread that prompted that observation! More power to him if so.
    haha nah...i don't think so. i'm too sold into German stuff, as some might alleged


    The D100 is still cheaper than the Canon. And the EOS1D price was never really slashed.
    1D price was never really slashed. Why? cos there isn't really any competition, is there?


    Definitely. I never said it was. The only thing I said in my original post about the DCS14n was in response to Erwin's wish for a good camera priced between the D60/D100 and the EOS1Ds. Well the EOS1Ds certainly doesn't fit that description, the Kodak on paper at least undeniably does. So how that constitutes going gaga I have no idea!
    okie okie..got your point


    but if Contax refuses to supply them the glass, who else are they going to get it from?

    I know, I made that point as much myself. But the issue is, and in fact I wasn't referring to you at all in terms of the superiority of German glass (although I was referring to you in the migrating from Canon to German glass). Your point is exactly what I'm trying to get across. Clearly, Japanese glass is good enough for the engineers and designers at Hasselblad. Surely it should be enough for most average users.
    yup. of course. and to be really banal about it, i didn't exactly migrate either. i'm using both. Heh


    Seriously though, we're missing the point. The point is, are Nikon lenses really more expensive than Canon ones? Before you start shouting about all the examples that have been thrown about, hear me out.
    no wait u got me wrong. i'm completlely oblivious to the "who is more expensive" argument. I KNOW which is the really more expensive system, and it ain't N or C.......


    Besides, you also seem to suggest that the 17-35L is a sub-par performer. So what does it matter if it's slightly cheaper and made of all metal (the Nikon is, incidentally, taken in the spirit of the original statement)
    no u got me wrong again. i ask precisely cos the 17-35L Canon isn't all metal, not the entire barrel. And I am guessing that may be the reason for the price difference, if the Nikon is indeed all metal, which you have just confirmed it is.

    not sure about the newer 16-35L's metallic content.


    In fact, wasn't it you that I was telling how impressed I was about the EOS1Ds. And then you were the one who reminded me about the DCS14n!
    oops yes that's true. heh.

    Hope this doesn't start the flames going.
    haha.....everyone is asking when it's gonna start...
    nothing like a good discussion.....
    David Teo
    View my work and blog at http://www.5stonesphoto.com/blog

  10. #90
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    6,405

    Default

    5 pages and no signs of smoke. Excellent.

    Let's see how far we can take this:

    No doubt DCS14n is F80-based, it's not a plain old F80 like the D100 or the S2 Pro. IIRC, it's a metal body, with F80 top plate and electronics. F80 never had that weird shape. It's kinda like the D1 series isn't exactly a F100 body.

    So, for a full frame 35mm sensor, with a bit more resolution than the 1Ds, at half the price, it makes it a very sweet deal. Whether you are starting from scratch with no lenses, or having an arsenal of N or C lenses at your disposal isn't the issue here. It is HALF the price of the competitor, never mind not having a pro body and possibly higher fps. The cost savings more than made up for it.

    And let's not forget Canon made a fool of themselves by allegedly leaking information about the 1Ds before PhotoKina, then announcing it on Photokina day 1. Just a day before, Kodak dropped the bomb on everyone with the DCS14n at half the price.

    And let's not forget also that Kodak is one of the pioneers of DSLRs, before Nikon broke the monopoly with their D1 in around 1999. So I'd assume they have all the expertise in that area, nevermind that they did not make the sensor. And like Jed said, the lack of anti-aliasing filter, etc is going to contribute to an improvement in image quality.

    The FireWire support is a boon to studio shooters who shoot with the camera tethered to their laptop/desktop computer, with its high transfer rate, images will appear quickly on the monitor.

    Regards
    CK

  11. #91
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,911

    Default

    Originally posted by Red Dawn
    Good for us consumers.
    Definitely. The problem for Canon users however seems to be that Kodak's abandoned producing Canon mount cameras, which means there isn't a course of competition for Canon.

    If it were dropped to within USD $1k of the Kodak, would the Kodak still be the better buy for a complete new user with no existing lenses and with the dough to spare?

    If.

    Sorry, but we need to be realistic. The EOS1Ds is expected to sell for 7000. The Kodak DCS14n is supposed to sell for 3500. Given that even you except that neither price is set in stone, while both are liable to change, excepting the EOS1Ds to fall from 7000 to 4200 (to bring it within your US$1k difference) is wishful thinking I'm afraid.

    Besides, isn't the EOS1Ds a much better camera built on a much more professional camera? In which case, you should feel happy paying the extra money!

    now if one is choosing the Contax SLR system vs a Nikon SLR system, then the cost of the system definitely comes into the equation............

    Agreed. Like Leica or Canon for example, as well. Unless of course you happen to be fortunate and wealthy enough to own both, in which case it's a moot point!

    Those review sites are getting production units, not actual shipping units.

    Erm. Hello? Anybody home? *koks RD*

    Production units = units that will be shipped once Canon do so.

    You're confusing production units with pre-production units and prototypes. Not quite the same thing. Nope, several review sites already have production units of the EOS1Ds.

    i think actual shipping is December, with general availability only by March of 2003....

    Chances are though, you may not be far from the truth. Digital cameras so far have a fairly concrete track record of delays. In which case I wouldn't either be surprised if the Kodak was also delayed.

    Kodak may have plenty of experience with DSLRS, but they're now dealing with a chip not done by them. And the chip supplier seems to be a new player in this camera sensor thingy...(i may be wrong about this).

    Actually, it is widely acknowledged that the main determinant in image quality in the current engineering climate is not the quality differences between CCD/CMOS sensors, but in what is done with the raw data they capture.

    I'm not saying your statement is wrong, it is a potential problem. I'm just throwing another factor into the equation.

    I'm not going to talk about needs here, cos it's obvious none of us really need a new DSLR.

    Wrong. I do. Seriously though, I do. I'm grinning at proving you wrong so easily.

    The D60 or Nikon D100 is US$2000, maybe lower. That's twice the price. i'm sure that price difference is significant to a lot of Clubsnappers. Certainly it is to me.

    Hang on. You're missing the point. I introduced the Kodak as a camera fitting between the D60/D100 and the EOS1Ds. Price wise, that's not in question, and you've just proven it.

    Second, I said the Kodak DCS14n was affordable, yes. But only relative to the EOS1Ds. That camera is, erm, "twice the price. I'm sure that price difference is significant to a lot of Clubsnappers." Not only that, numerically the difference is also double!

    Now for reference, the EOS 1D when it first came out was US$5000. That's close to the Kodak price.

    That's close to the Kodak price? That's US$1k off the Kodak price, convenient how that becomes "close". How come US$2k isn't close? Maybe US$1999 is the cutoff for close? I am similarly certain that, yes, wait for it, "that price difference is significant to a lot of Clubsnappers." I know you have a Leica and lots of plush Canon gear, but US$1k is really not to be trifled with

    It was a breakthrough in its time (and probably still is),

    Your point? It was and still is. As was the D1. As was the D1x. As was the D1h. As is the Kodak DCS14n.

    It was a sports shooter's dream.

    Definitely. I never said it wasn't.

    wat breakthrough does the Kodak offer other than more megapixels and a full frame sensor? Wat is worth twice the price? the name Kodak?

    Hang on. In all honesty, you're not making a lot of sense at the moment. You can't just brush aside 14 megapixels as not being a breakthrough. For example, it's got more megapixels than Canon's new all-singing and all-dancing high resolution professional digital SLR. At half the price. That's not a breakthrough?

    I'm afraid I feel you're being very selective with your interpretation of facts. Sure the EOS1D has many, many breakthrough features, as you've already pointed out. At least acknowledge that so too does the Kodak DCS14n.

    More importantly, as you've stated yourself, the EOS1D was a sportshooters dream, with most of the technical breakthroughs related to sports photographers. By the time you weight that to the average purchaser, the Kodak actually would have more technological breakthroughs. Sure the 8fps is a very nice technological breakthrough. But how many users would (if they're being honest) take 8fps over 14mp for example?

    Not many.

    If i'm a Nikon user with the D100, i'll wait one year, and get a DSLR with twice the megapixels, and maybe full frame as well. And maybe pay even less! The transition from the D30 to the D60 is such an example - more megapixels, less money.

    Sorry but the whole argument falls flat on the "I'll wait one year" part. Why buy an EOS1Ds then? I'll wait one year (maybe two!), wait for the EOS D240 (1 generation down from the D120), which will have more megapixels than the 1Ds (probably 22mp by then) and pay even less.

    Sorry. But asking you to wait one year in the digital market is just ridiculous. I'll wait one year and have a better specified PC than if I'd buy one now. Right.

    Come to think of it, how many of us actually connect the camera to the PC to transfer images? So even the firewire feature is something we can really do without.

    Like I've been saying all along. How many of us need 8fps. How many of us need the AF system of an EOS1Ds. How many of us need better weather sealing? How many of us... So all that is stuff you can do without.

    So as per your reasoning, why buy an EOS1Ds except for the increased megapixels and full frame coverage? In fact, not even as many extra megapixels as the Kodak!

    Now to summarise, my point is the 1D was a real breakthrough with its asking price of US$5000. Canon is probably going to slash the price of the 1Ds when it's finally released to somewhere close to the Kodak.

    The 1D was a breakthrough for what it was. I don't think many people would consider the US$5000 price exactly breakthrough. The D1 was a breathrough camera as well. At a breakthrough price as well, because prior to that, digital SLRs cost much more than what they do today.

    Yes you might say the 1D was a great improvement over the D1 series. But that's the digital market. The D1 was also a great technological improvement over the earlier Kodak DCS cameras, but at a much lower price. The 1D certainly met the technological improvement criteria, but did not beat the D1 at price.

    And Canon slashing the price of the 1Ds to the price of the Kodak? As I've already been on about up there, you really should stop dreaming about it, because it's extremely unrealistic.

    Or maybe it's because that secretly, in your heart of hearts, you know that really the EOS1Ds really isn't worth much more than the Kodak DCS14n? (Tongue firmly in cheek)

    I suspect the final price of the 1Ds will be closer to the 1D. Which will make the Kodak look bad in comparison.

    You suspect. Keep suspecting. My own suspicions are that it won't. In the 12-18 months that they have been out, the D1x hasn't edged closer in price to the D1h (although they have come down slightly). Why would they drop the price of the 1Ds?

    No doubt you will be very happy if they do slash the price, and good for you. But from an outside standpoint, I have to say it smacks more of wishful thinking. After all, I can suspect that they slash the price of the D2 to the price of a D100, but it isn't exactly going to happen is it?

    Even if they didn't, the 1D offers true pro level specs compared to the Kodak, which basically is a full frame D100 with more megapixels.

    We've been through this. Pro level specs. Such as firewire connectivity for example. Which you've already dismissed. I'm happy to knock pro level specs, but at least be fair in your knocking. Don't selectively knock those found on the Kodak, and not those found on the Canon.

    Speaking of pro level specs. Canon's EOS1D is missing a zoom function on the LCD. Before you say that Canon expect their AF to nail the subject all the time (they might well do, but then they'd be wrong), realise also that lots and lots of people DO use this function.

    yup. of course. and to be really banal about it, i didn't exactly migrate either. i'm using both.

    Yeah. I know. See above.

    If it seems like I am knocking the EOS1D/1Ds, I'm not. I haven't specifically gone and said either camera is a poor camera. Far from it, in many instances I have proclaimed their good worth. When I have taken them down a notch or two, it is only in response to the logic employed by Red Dawn in demolishing the Kodak DCS14n. Even then I apply the same logic to the EOS1D/1Ds. No special treatment.

    I still consider the EOS1D to be my dream camera (at the moment) because of the kind of work I do. I just happen to think the EOS1Ds is a great camera, and that the Kodak DCS14n ALSO IS a great camera. Red Dawn doesn't seem to agree on the Kodak front.

    Maybe because it takes Nikon lenses and not Canon lenses?

  12. #92
    elsanto
    Guests

    Default

    Why put up with Nikon's and Canon's lens when you can get beautiful pictures with Contax's System and their internationally renowned CZ lens?

    Those who are using them CY system will understand my argument, but I can observe that, hmm... there doesn't seems to be any such user in CS huh. At least when I look at it from the surface. Hee...

    Unless price is a barrier, Contax is the way to go, ya?

    Note: This post is with regard to my memory of someone saying "why change system unless you get dramatic increase in quality of shots taken" or something like that...

  13. #93
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,911

    Default

    Originally posted by elsanto Why put up with Nikon's and Canon's lens when you can get beautiful pictures with Contax's System and their internationally renowned CZ lens?
    I'm surprised no one has responded so far, or is everyone afraid of this so-far-impeccable thread degenerating?

    Why put up with Nikon and Canon lenses? Good question. I'm certainly not putting up with them. I'm perfectly happy with my Nikkors. Putting up implies living with items that are deficient and don't do the job. To me anyway my Nikkors don't bother me, and the pictures taken with Canon lenses that I've seen don't bother me either.

    Internationally renown. But are they actually any better? Hear say is a lovely concept.

    Unless price is a barrier, Contax is the way to go, ya?

    Maybe. Maybe not.

    If you need 8fps, Contax is not the way to go. If you need IS, Contax is not the way to go. If you need superteles, Contax is not the way to go. If you need fast AF, Contax is not the way to go. If you need a 50mm f1.0, Contax is not the way to go. If you need to do mid-roll rewind and prewind automatically, Contax is not the way to go. If you want the colour rendition of Minolta lenses, Contax is not the way to go.

    I'm not anti-Contax. And I've also not gone back on what I've been saying earlier in this thread. Definitely, not everyone needs 8fps, IS, etc etc. But I'm just responding to your sweeping statement that said that price was the only barrier to making Contax the ideal camera. It could well be for many people, but it might not be for many people as well.

    Note: This post is with regard to my memory of someone saying "why change system unless you get dramatic increase in quality of shots taken" or something like that...

    Well, until you have facts to throw at why Contax is a dramatic increase in quality, then I'm not moved by your argument. If it's optical quality you're after, then a move to a Chinese Seagull would be a better buy. Money no object.

  14. #94

    Default Canon vs Nikon


  15. #95
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Northwest
    Posts
    5,011

    Default

    I don't see the need to start a new thread to compare Nikon and Canon, so I have merged maddog's thread to this thread.
    As complexity rises, precise statements lose meaning and meaningful statements lose precision.

  16. #96

    Default

    Ordinarily, I'd opt not to be involved too much but there are some serious points to raise here.


    1) "Dagger, I've already been on about the IS thing many times before. IS only really benefits 70-200/2.8 class lenses, and 300/2.8 class lenses. I suppose if money is an issue (and when is it not!) then it is benefitial on 300/4 and 80-400 class lenses as well."

    Jed, IS/VR benefits apply across all focal lengths. If the reciprocal rule is to be properly understood, the shorter end of lenses will benefit just as much. There is no logic to saying that it does not apply to a 28mm lens for example. Its like saying the reciprocal rule does not apply at 28mm.

    I always hear about people saying that stabilisation applies only to very long focal lengths. YES, shake is accentuated at those focal lengths but the same RECIPROCAL rule applies! The shorter the FL, the slower the shutter speed possibly usable. Its amazing how people often ask me "Why is my shot at 400mm soft when I use 1/25th of a second" without realising that that should be done at 100mm only.

    I have used the 100-400 IS, 70-200 IS & the stabilisation is just as important at the short end.

    U're never gonna be able to use 1/10th of a second at 200mm but at 70mm, it is definitely possible for example. There is no debate about that.

    In very low light conditions (theatre etc.) that I do, I had often wished my 28-70 had stabilisation. When I've been running hard and my pulse rate is up, stabilisation at all FL is especially important.

    Its the same reason that Olympic shooters have been known to cheat by doping themselves to reduce the heartbeat rate in order to lengthen the window period (between the pulse travelling through the hand) for that critical shot to be squeezed off.

    Its the same way I can never understand why ppl keep asking what shutter speed they can use on a monopod or what shutter speed other people can handhold.

    Fact is the individual's performance in handholding differs in direct relation to his physical state. Mohamad Ali in his prime had a heartbeat rate of 30 beats per minute at rest. His heart and capillary system was so efficient, the body can be fed with oxygen for 2 seconds with every squeeze of the heart.

    If he was a photographer, he would have 2 seconds to steady himself and shoot before the next pulse travelled through his hands. Nearly twice as long as most people.

    But try asking him to take a steady pic immediately after his blockbuster bout with George Foreman with the heartbeat at 200+ beats/min (sort of near human limit).

    IS/VR is the only objective technological feature that addresses that. In time to come many many lenses will have IS/VR. Wide to Tele.

    2) Price differentials
    UK vs Singapore

    I dun think it is a fair example to look at the UK prices you have drawn. US & Sing prices are definitely more congruent.

    At your UK prices (in pounds), each of the items (17-35, 28-70, 70/80-200) costs S$3500 upwards, which is almost twice what the int'l rate is (Singapore and US being fairer, more similar examples).

    Even taking into account the differences in tax etc. given the fat margins, it is more likely that the Canon lenses were marked up to Nikon levels, not so much a case of the Nikon lenses being priced downward to match Canon.

    In Singapore, (which is the main place of concern, no?). The prices are woefully skewed in Canon's favour. I'm talking like for like lenses. L vs AFS period.

    Canon's top of the line lenses (most popular being the zoom L ones) beat Nikon's equivalent by a significant margin IN TERMS OF PRICE (BRAND NEW). I dun have to even bring out the numbers. Get an e-quote!

    & we're not even talking about the 2nd hand market yet. That'll blow the comparision away into a farce.

    Two simple answers why this is so is simple...try disputing it:
    (1)Marketing and (2)EOS (Economies of Scale lah!).

    - Nikon has been slow to get into the AFS scene. Cannibilisation of the sales of its own existing range of lenses, which are priced competitively with Canon's already, will be disastrous if the AFS lenses were priced too close to its existing (non-AFS) range's prices.

    Therefore AFS had to be a lot more expensive.

    Its also their way of segmenting the market into the amateurs (the have nots) and the pros (the haves).

    That's why AFS ends up costing more than L. They consciously did it, pls! Its up to you whether to accept it or not.


    BTW, we will only compare AFS to L, not normal Nikon ED, cos its just not the same

    - Canon puts USM motors into every lens.
    - Imagine the economies of scale of R&D, manufacturing etc. Imagine the volumes that they ship. Imagine the bargaining power with their suppliers. Imagine how the EOS was introduced in the 80's! Imagine 20 years of learning curve.
    - As a manufacturer, eliminating things such as gear drive chains and very importantly, aperture rings also cut costs!
    - Nikon's G series lenses without aperture rings addresses this. Bravo! Cos better late than never.

    The cost structure of the L lens has got to be lower, no?

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Caveat 1: I've used both systems (not gonna tell u what I am mainly using now, make a guess) and I can objectively state that everything I mentioned above is about $$PRICE$$ cost alone.

    They are equally excellent, quality wise (optics, features etc.). Although some ding dong swings occur.

    Like...do u think Ferrari will dominate forever?

    And to those who always insist that Nikon glass is somehow better or vice-versa that Canon L glass is superior, get a life pls...

    Caveat 2: I will not dwell into the digital body thingie yet. The digital revolution has completely screwed things up.

    Take it easy guys, its still an embryonic industry ... I suspect that Yoda would've said..."The Digital side has clouded everything..."

    Consider how the D60/D100 faced supply shortages when 1st launched. Nobody could have predicted the price/supply/demand equation.

    I happen to have met the Canon Singapore President at a dinner function and chatted at length with him not too long after the D60 was introduced. A marvellous Japanese gentleman that he was, he was almost apologetic about the shortfall in the forecasting of demand.

    Who coulda blamed him? Do u really think that they know how much to price the EOS 1Ds & Kodak DC14? They all price it and then hope to see what the sales figures end up being!

    BTW, I was using both Nikon and Canon, so there was plenty to talk about. Besides telling me to buy the (85mm?) tilt and shift lens, he was also telling me about the foresight of his Japanese CEO etc. in implementing the EOS system in the 80s.

    What the hell were we doing IT or PC or computer-wise in the 80s? I was playing Pacman on Apple IIE?

    It was the equivalent of aircraft fly-by-wire technology but airplane enthusiasts can take it up with me another day.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    I think the key to a sane discussion thread is to keep to the objective matters (show numbers, facts and reason).

    & to avoid matters of conjecture, opinion, "I say this", "u say that" kinda crap.

    Show us the numbers.

  17. #97
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    6,405

    Default

    long, I believe Jed has a reason for saying that IS/VR technology is only useful for 70(80)-200 class zooms and 300 primes. Why? Coz anything longer than that, and you will be mounting the thing on a tripod anyway. And IS isn't as useful on a tripod - in fact on the early IS implementations, you are supposed to turn it off when mounted on tripod.

    70(80)-200 zooms and 300 primes are usually handheld, or used in conjunction with a monopod, where IS will really help. Particularly if you are on say, a boat. Longer than that, as mentioned, it becomes redundant. How useful is IS on a 600mm lens for example, when you must mount on a beefy tripod anyway?


    Regards
    CK

  18. #98
    elsanto
    Guests

    Default

    I agree that I did make a sweeping statement, in fact, sweeping statements, on my part, and I do apologise, no erm... intention to stirr up trouble here. ya?

    Ok, I assume you have not seen pictures taken with Contax's lenses, and I assume you have not compare the MTF graphs of the lenses too...

    Ok, I am not an anti-Nikon or an anti-Canon activist here, it's just from my personal experience, I find the image quality in terms of colour, contrast, bokeh, sharpness, etc. are much better than Nikkor, Canon and Minolta.

    Ok, Speed and autofocus wise, Contax definitely loses out, but let's look at things matter of factly, how many of us really need 8fps? But I guess you had already made that point.

    So back to the sweeping statement, Contax do serve a minor niche of the market, with it's slow autofocus, pre-historic electronics and stuff, but it's image quality is another matter altogether.

    Chinese Seagull? Why lug that one along when you can get the quality on an SLR? I'm talking about the niche of the Canon and Nikkor market that does not need fast autofocus and top of the line electronics here, but those who are talking colour, contrast, bokeh, sharpness...

  19. #99
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    2,464

    Default

    Originally posted by elsanto
    Ok, I assume you have not seen pictures taken with Contax's lenses, and I assume you have not compare the MTF graphs of the lenses too...
    i assume u have not seen pictures taken with Leica's lenses, and i assume you have not compared the MTF graphs of the lenses too.......


    Ok, I am not an anti-Nikon or an anti-Canon activist here, it's just from my personal experience, I find the image quality in terms of colour, contrast, bokeh, sharpness, etc. are much better than Nikkor, Canon and Minolta.
    wow bold statement. this is sure to turn up the heat in this thread a few notches. No make that a few hundred notches....

    actually i kinda forgot about this thread these 2 days. now it looks like things will get more interesting here


    I'm talking about the niche of the Canon and Nikkor market that does not need fast autofocus and top of the line electronics here, but those who are talking colour, contrast, bokeh, sharpness...
    believe me, if u're talking about colour, contrast, bokeh, sharpness, u really want to look at . Nothing else comes close...

    oh dear....... now the Germans are in this........Jed i know u're going to have fun
    David Teo
    View my work and blog at http://www.5stonesphoto.com/blog

  20. #100
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,911

    Default

    Fun? No. I'm going to stay as rational as I can here. Besides, I think it's been reasonable so far and I've still been having fun without screaming my lungs out.

    Originally posted by long
    Jed, IS/VR benefits apply across all focal lengths. If the reciprocal rule is to be properly understood, the shorter end of lenses will benefit just as much. There is no logic to saying that it does not apply to a 28mm lens for example. Its like saying the reciprocal rule does not apply at 28mm.
    Not meaning to be condescending, but you think I don't know that?

    I know what it says in the literature and what the manufacturers claim. But I have already on more than one occasion gone on at length about why IMO you really shouldn't be bothered about IS aside from the scenarios I mentioned. And possibly I might have ignored the usual boat/vibrating platform caveat, but that's when IS/VR would come in useful as well.

    I will not go back into those details again, otherwise this would be even longer than your long thread, Long. Suffice to say I stand by my original statement having considered the situation beyond what is written; of course you don't have to agree with me, but hopefully you make an informed decision.

    I have used the 100-400 IS, 70-200 IS & the stabilisation is just as important at the short end.

    I hear everything that you're saying; I'm not exactly a beginner at photography, so I comprehend the reciprocal rule perfectly well. And as mentioned above I have my reasons that I have already made known in this forum on more than one occasion.

    U're never gonna be able to use 1/10th of a second at 200mm but at 70mm, it is definitely possible for example. There is no debate about that.

    Not at all, I do not debate that.

    In very low light conditions (theatre etc.) that I do, I had often wished my 28-70 had stabilisation.

    Right. You will then most definitely benefit from what I've had to say on the issue.

    IS/VR is the only objective technological feature that addresses that. In time to come many many lenses will have IS/VR. Wide to Tele.

    No doubt they will. Just like USM has invaded almost every Canon lens and is now starting to do the same with Nikon. But how many people make use (as in, require the performance gain, or make use of the FTM feature), that USM provides?

    Until IS technology improves to a great extent, then the present usefulness situation will continue.

    I dun think it is a fair example to look at the UK prices you have drawn. US & Sing prices are definitely more congruent.

    No? Why not? Who's to say that the US and Singapore prices are right? I haven't done a comparison with European continental countries, but I suspect they will be more on a par with UK prices. Who's to say which one is correct, and which one is wrong?

    Assuming that the two lenses are similar and hence should cost about the same, that suggests that it is the US and Singapore are out of sync.

    At your UK prices (in pounds), each of the items (17-35, 28-70, 70/80-200) costs S$3500 upwards, which is almost twice what the int'l rate is (Singapore and US being fairer, more similar examples).

    Again, what constitutes a fairer international example? Photographic gear is even more expensive than the UK in continental Europe. Everything is relative. What exactly is the International rate of an AF-S 80-200? There is no such thing as an international rate.

    Even if there were, the UK prices are uniformly expensive, so that shouldn't make a substantial difference to the comparison between similar UK prices. It's not like I'm comparing a Canon UK 28-70 price with a Nikon Singapore price; in which case you would have had a grievance.

    given the fat margins, it is more likely that the Canon lenses were marked up to Nikon levels, not so much a case of the Nikon lenses being priced downward to match Canon.

    Good argument. Except it falls because the other two Nikon lenses (the 17-35 and 80-200) are priced similarly to the rest of the price difference with the products around the world. As in, Nikon products are roughly 30% more expensive in the UK than in SG. The 28-70 is the odd one out. In which case if your argument held true then Canon have priced every single one of their lenses bar the 28-70 up to meet Nikon prices.

    In Singapore, (which is the main place of concern, no?).

    Not to me, but yes I agree with you. That's why I was asking, is that down to a manufacturing thing, a Japanese head office thing, or a local importer thing. I'm suggesting it's the latter.

    Canon's top of the line lenses (most popular being the zoom L ones) beat Nikon's equivalent by a significant margin IN TERMS OF PRICE (BRAND NEW). I dun have to even bring out the numbers. Get an e-quote!

    As we have done before, I made references to the figures already in my earlier posts. I conceded the situation in Singapore and the US as well. I'm just challenging the notion that Canon is cheaper. Just maybe that it is the local Nikon importers that price up, or the local Canon importers that price down. I'm not quibbling the price difference.

    & we're not even talking about the 2nd hand market yet. That'll blow the comparision away into a farce.

    Yes. Because Nikon gear is built to last, whereas Canon gear devalues drastically and isn't built to survive more than one user! Okay, that was just for a laugh, but seriously though. There are other factors to consider there. Canon produces more new lenses with new facilities. As in, IS lenses. Non-IS lenses start flooding the second hand market. Pushing the 17-35 to 16-35, flooding the second hand market. 28-70 to 24-70, flooding the second hand market. Similar things are happening with Nikon, look at the raft of AF-S 80-200 lenses going on sale with the new VR one imminent. Mine as well, I make no secret of that.

    Furthermore, even conceding your argument that Canon 2nd hand gear is cheaper than Nikon 2nd hand gear; this has nothing to do with Nikon prices (ignoring any original pricing discrepancy, because to take that into account would make it one point stretched to make two).

    Any second hand market is driven completely by market forces of supply and demand. Obviously, whether justified or not, Nikon equipment commands a better price because Nikon buyers feel more prepared to pay more for their Nikon gear. A 2nd hand 80-200 AF-S wouldn't cost S$2 if nobody would buy one for that amount. So a Canon 70-200L can't fetch S$1000 if no one will pay that money for it. So it really doesn't help your cause at all, except perhaps to suggest that Canon is viewed as a "cheap" brand.

    Cannibilisation of the sales of its own existing range of lenses, which are priced competitively with Canon's already, will be disastrous if the AFS lenses were priced too close to its existing (non-AFS) range's prices.

    Easy. You're saying it's bad marketing if Nikon priced their AF-S lenses at similar prices to their existing lenses because that would hurt sales.

    Only one thing. Canon did it. Their L lenses and USM L lenses are very close in price.

    That's why AFS ends up costing more than L. They consciously did it, pls! Its up to you whether to accept it or not.

    Sigh. I don't deny that prices are consciously set. I'm saying that maybe it's down to Nikon Singapore, not Nikon Nikon.

    BTW, we will only compare AFS to L, not normal Nikon ED, cos its just not the same

    And it's not the same, how?

    Okay, economies of scale explains why Canon lenses are cheaper. So maybe they are. But as I've been saying, they are not always cheaper.

    You're suggesting Canon UK are being the fat cats in marking up prices. I'm just suggesting the possibility that maybe it's Nikon SG that's marking prices up.

    Unless you know someone who can verify the production cost of the lenses, we'll never really know and it's all conjecture. If the only basis you're claiming that Canon is cheaper to produce is the Singapore (or US) prices, then I've already said, how come they are the yardsticks?

    I'm not saying that Canon are not cheaper. I'm just saying that they are not necessarily cheaper.

    The cost structure of the L lens has got to be lower, no?

    As argued by you, entirely possibly. Even probable, but not necessarily true. But that is not in dispute. The cost price of a lens is not in dispute, it's the sale price. The sale price is easy to determine so I don't know what you've bothered to go into cost price. As you said, just get an equote from Cathay, or drop into www.ajpurdy.co.uk.

    The fact is, in some places, Canon lenses are as expensive as Nikon lenses. To a consumer that's all that matters. It doesn't matter if the Canon lens cost $0.50 to make and the Nikon one cost $2000, if they both retail at $2100. So all that discussion about production cost is moot really. Cheaper for Canon to produce as you have argued, but not necessarily cheaper to buy.

    I suspect that Yoda would've said..."The Digital side has clouded everything..."

    And you'd be wrong, so maybe the rest of your suspicions would've been wrong to! :bsmillie: I am not a Yoda expert, but I believe it would have been more along the lines of "Clouded everything, the Digital side has..."

    I happen to have met the Canon Singapore President at a dinner function and chatted at length with him

    Ah...

    Who coulda blamed him?

    Seriously, I wouldn't dream of blaming him. I can't even begin to imagine why I might.

    (cont'd)

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •