Go for Technology or Better Optics

Jed · Mar 10, 2002

Oh dear... :rbounce: alert!

I disagree with you on several fronts. Nikon and Canon both have their stunners and their lemons. Both sides have legendary optics as well as their stinkers. So I wouldn't say Nikon have better optics than Canon. I also say that any minor differences are insignificant in the vast majority of the time.

Furthermore I also disagree that Canon has better technology than Nikon. For example, for a long time Nikon had what was considered by far and away the best flash technology. In terms of accuracy rather than I-can-strobe-at-500-times-a-second. They still have the world's only colour sensitive camera meter. There are also things Canon have that Nikon don't, and for that matter, things Minolta have that neither Canon nor Nikon have.

Even if there I differences, I re-iterate, it will not matter to 99% of the photographers out there.

kongg · Mar 10, 2002

Nikon Vs Canon thingy aside, I will go for better optics rather than technology.

franciskc · Mar 10, 2002

I go for both.;p

ninelives · Mar 10, 2002

as usual optic is more expensive then Technology.
optic is like a permanent thingy, technology can phase out easily.

YSLee · Mar 10, 2002

And pray tell, why are you taking scenary without a tripod? And on a 35mm no less?

mpenza · Mar 10, 2002

guess it's good to have accessories like tripod to complement your collection of lenses and bodies ;p

ckiang · Mar 10, 2002

No IS, VR and what nots can help you if the exposure is 1s.

Regards
CK

ckiang · Mar 10, 2002

Originally posted by nicholas1986
i don't think people will want to go on a holiday with a tripod (it takes time to mount and you know that holiday trips are very short of time)
i saw this guy on my last holiday trip he is holding a 35-80mm lens and A TRIPOD. then after the third day i never see he use a tripod already

Use faster film. But like I said, no VR/IS technology is going to help at that kind of low shutter speeds. VR/IS is no miracle, it will help in certain cases, but its main purpose is only to let you hand hold at a slightly lower speed, just like a monopod. Both are no substitutes for tripods when it comes to exposures beyond about 1/8 or so.

Regards
CK

Jed · Mar 10, 2002

Originally posted by nicholas1986
i would go for technology as lets say you want to take a picture of a scenery, at f5.6 your shutter is 1/30. you want to increase your DOP and so you have to increase your f stop maybe to f11. and not the shutter speed my be like 1sec. without IS you may no be able to get a sharp picture(due to hand shake). but with IS you will get a sharp one.

I would go for understanding first. It is clear from this little paragraph that you don't understand exposure at all. 1/30 at f5.6 is not the same as 1s at f11. The latter will be three stops overexposed, which will result in a completely useless pic anyway, even if IS manages to save the focusing.

At 1s, without IS, there is no way you will get a sharp picture handholding. It's not a question of may or may not be able to. Again, if you understand the concepts behind handholding, you'll also do better than just relying on buying IS lenses. And as CK has already said, with IS, there is also no way you will get a sharp picture handholding at 1s. It is certainly not a case of "with IS you will get a sharp one". Even Canon doesn't make that claim.

you can always stay at f5.6 but then i think that f5.6 may not give you enough contrast and there for optics drop.

Again I choose understanding and learning before optics or technology. Why does using f5.6 not give you enough contrast? Contrast is the last thing at issue when changing apertures.

There really isn't any substitute for a good grounding in photographic fundamentals, and new technology is unfortunately not always the solution.

langzi · Mar 11, 2002

hey nicholas1986, IMHO, i think that if you go for optics it would be more worth, cos in the end, the light is gona stream through these lens and end up on film.

my 2 cents worth.

cheers,
langzi

Bluestrike · Mar 11, 2002

Originally posted by langzi
hey nicholas1986, IMHO, i think that if you go for optics it would be more worth, cos in the end, the light is gona stream through these lens and end up on film.

my 2 cents worth.

cheers,
langzi

Agreed!

Kho King · Mar 11, 2002

Originally posted by nicholas1986
I believe that nikon has better optics than Canon, but then Canon has better technology than Nikon.
Like The Amazing ...IS,USM,DO,L, EYE CONTROL.
But do you really go for the camera because of this?
Or do you go for the camera because of optics?

But don't forget that better technology may also result helping in taking sharper pictures (better optics) for example, you want to take a slow shutter on a holiday trip and got no time to mount a tripod. in this case technology will really help you

I don't agree, although I am a Nikon user. Canon and Nikon both have good optic, but Canon is better in technology in lenses than Nikon, but Nikon is a bit in front in digital.

Canon has 28-70mm f/2.8 zoom before Nikon, and Canon has 70-200mm f/2.8 zoom before Nikon, both lenses are top optic...compare to Nikon later 28-70 AFS and 80-200mm AFS. Nikon 70-200mm is not out yet...

Papa Hommer · Mar 12, 2002

a picture of a scenery, at f5.6 your shutter is 1/30. you want to increase your DOP and so you have to increase your f stop maybe to f11. and not the shutter speed my be like 1sec.

I don't believe it! From a F5.6 - 1/30... How could you end up with a f11 - 1sec??? It's more than 3 stops different!!! :bsmilie:

Even if the shutter speed is 1 sec... IS is not going to save your pix for you! IS from experience can only go 2 stops under... E.g.: if a IS lens of 200mm ur shutter speed should be 1/250sec rite? 2 stop under will give you 1/60sec... Even if you have a VERY steady hand... with a 200mm lens... the most you can hand held at 1/30sec...

Hey! Nicholas1986 get ur maths right! It seems to me that you have not got enough practice on you camera... or did you buy a camera just to look cool infront of ur friends?

I believe that nikon has better optics than Canon, but then Canon has better technology than Nikon.

Hmm... is techology so important??? Sure! Techology makes life easier... Techology can also make your average joe into an phD! But techology still cannot compose my pix for me!

Techology like IS, Eye control do helps you in taking your pix... but if your composition sux.... Hmmmm... you are better off with a FM2 or 3... back to basic.... Remember your training young Jedi! and then come and join the dark side!....:devil:

Optics... Hahaha... let me tell all of you something.... Once I showed my Nikon friend a pix... He thought it was so good that it was from a Nikon Lens! Then a Canon friend came along... disbelieving that Nikon len took the pix... "It must be a Canon!" He claims.... But the truth is that I took the pix with my Sigma Lens!! Yes, the Poor Man's Lens! The very Sigma 70-210 F2.8 APO....

In 4R... all pix looks the same.... unless it's a Zeiss or something else... These lens have a very high colour constrast.... and the best part these camera makers do not have much techology in their cameras...

Cheers

ninelives · Mar 12, 2002

Originally posted by Kho King

but Canon is better in technology in lenses than Nikon, but Nikon is a bit in front in digital.

aiyo, who started AF ?? Minolta.
who started wireless TTL ??? Minolta.

You thought Minolta is stupid and not releasing a DC-SLR while canon and nikon already did so? well, as usual, they always observe wat is in the market, compare it and improve it. But does not mean steal it.

Kit · Mar 12, 2002

Originally posted by nicholas1986
i would go for technology as lets say you want to take a picture of a scenery, at f5.6 your shutter is 1/30. you want to increase your DOP and so you have to increase your f stop maybe to f11. and not the shutter speed my be like 1sec. without IS you may no be able to get a sharp picture(due to hand shake). but with IS you will get a sharp one.
you can always stay at f5.6 but then i think that f5.6 may not give you enough contrast and there for optics drop.

so i can say that technology i what i go for and it may sometimes give you better optics

Hey!!! You don't seriously believe that you can handheld a 1 sec exposure and still come out with a sharp pic using IS do you? No such things lah!!! When I was still using my 28-135, the slowest I can go with IS was about 1/30 or 1/20 at the most. To lead you to think that you can handheld at 1 sec, Canon's marketing is doing a damn great job me think.

erwinx · Mar 12, 2002

you seem to be describing a stereotypical singaporean holiday of rush here-rush there see the maximum amount of tourist traps in the minimum amount of time.

Personally, I got lots of time on my holidays to set up my tripod while waiting to take in a beautiful sunset or sunrise.

The rest of the flamebait :rbounce: I won't touch....

Originally posted by nicholas1986
i don't think people will want to go on a holiday with a tripod (it takes time to mount and you know that holiday trips are very short of time)
i saw this guy on my last holiday trip he is holding a 35-80mm lens and A TRIPOD. then after the third day i never see he use a tripod already

Kho King · Mar 12, 2002

Originally posted by ninelives

aiyo, who started AF ?? Minolta.
who started wireless TTL ??? Minolta.

You thought Minolta is stupid and not releasing a DC-SLR while canon and nikon already did so? well, as usual, they always observe wat is in the market, compare it and improve it. But does not mean steal it.

Oops...we forgot to include Minolta in the "discussion"...but still, I don't think Minolta is a leader in lens or camera technology now, no matter how good it is in the past.

Go for Technology or Better Optics

Member

Senior Member

New Member

New Member

Senior Member

Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

langzi

Guest

New Member

Senior Member

Papa Hommer

Guest

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member