Canonians & Nikonians unite!

[Chip NoVaMac]

It doesn't matter if the camera is used for professionally or not. The classification used is what Nikon (or Canon) considers "pro". The D2 series is the current "pro" line while the D50, D70, and D200 are considered "consumer". You don't need a "pro" classified camera to shoot professionally nor do you need a "consumer" classified body to shoot as a hobby. Bottom line here is that you NEED the "pro" bodies to be eligible for NPS (Nikon Professional Services). You could shoot $100,000 worth of weddings a year as a source of income with a D50, but NPS will not let you in because you have a "consumer" class camera.

I see your point. But the D200 is IMO an odd duck out when one looks at only pricing as a condition of a "pro"body. Not with standing the marketing departments of both companies. The stats speak of a lower-end D2 series body. The 30D is close behind, but fails on the weather-proofing.

It does not matter how Canon or Nikon markets a body in the end IMO. There were many that said that the D100 was the "affordable" DSLR to replace the F100. In the end the D70 beat it down for image quality improvements and feature set (internally). It took a couple of years for the D200 to show up - that was a worthy replacement to the F100. Which at the time many "pros" felt was a worthy consideration over the F5.

The problem is that the DSLR is is still in its infancy. But we and the manufactures are still trying to use old labels to define each niche. Despite what we may say the the current XT and D50 are not "true" equals in the marketplace. Not like the Canon Elan 7 series or or the N80.

Some want to pit the D200 vs the 5D. Two very different markets and price points. Would have Canon killed with a 5D with weather-sealing, and 5FPS?Hell yes at the $3000 price point, perhaps.

The "perhaps" comes from the first few posts in this thread - focusing on lens choices. It should be pointed out that Nikon does provide a "weather-seal/dust-seal" on the likes of the 18-70, 18-200VR, and the 105VR;like is what is offered on the Canon "L" glass.

It is also at this point I "defend"my switch from Canon to Nikon. That slippery sloop came with IMO the excellent 18-200VR. This lens and the D50 made the perfect sense for travel. Add the 10.5 fish-eye (and the 14mm reticular conversion in Nikon Capture) - I felt that I had the perfect travel kit.

After my travels with this Nikon kit (18-200VR and the 10.5)- I found myself looking at both my Canon kit and Nikon kit - wondering what should I take out for a shoot.

I was told some years ago; that if that question comes up - then you have too much gear. It was then that I decided that Nikon would be my choice.

I accept that Nikon may never have a FF sensor body. The 10.5 fish-eye was worth the price of admission. As well as the 105VR.Not to mention the Creative Light System (CLS) that is built-in to every body with a built-in flash (wireless flash).

Because of the CLS system I added an R1 close-up flash kit to my Nikon kit. Once I get past some personal issues; I hope to share my experiences with the R1 series.

So as it stands now; my current focus is on the following kit:

- Two D70s bodies (for "speed" shooting like I did with the "Rolling Thunder" pics

- A D50IR - a D50 converted to IR work (see my thread on this topic)

- the Nikon 10.5 fish-eye (also see my threads on this lens)

- a Tokina 12-24(was lucky that I work for a dealer, was able to exchange my Canon mount for a Nikon mount)

- the excellent 18-200VR (IMO)

- the Nikon 35mm/2.0 AFD

- the Nikon 50mm/1.4 AFD

- the 105VR

- the R1 kit

- 2x SB-800 flashes

- an SU-800

On my shortlist of what is known, openly talked about:

- the Tokina 16-50/2.8

- any 50-150/2.8

- the Tamron 200-500 - just in case I can get my but off to Africa

 

[beavo451]

...

*gasp* No 70-200 VR in your dreams?!? What kind of a photographer are you?

How is the D50 IR? I was thinking about doing a conversion, should make for some interesting wedding photography.

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

*gasp* No 70-200 VR in your dreams?!? What kind of a photographer are you?

How is the D50 IR? I was thinking about doing a conversion, should make for some interesting wedding photography.

To be honest I would love the the 70-200VR; but I find little need for my type of photography of needing a 105-300VR/2.8 FOV with a DSLR. Not at that size and weight. Remember I am a Leica RF photographer.

 

[jared_kipe]

While I like the L nameing convention, and quality, I don't like how stingy Canon can be when giving that name/quality out sometimes.

Namely the new EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 IS. If Canon will not bestow the beloved L label on a lens, they shouldn't expect me to reach into my pocket and pull out $1100 for it. I was recently deciding on a new general purpose lens, and it came down to the 24-70L 24-105LIS and the 17-55IS. From what I see, the 24-105mm is just not sharp enough to be a contender. And while the 17-55 is very sharp and I'd love the IS, looking at that lens makes it very obvious as to who its made for.

From its silver zoom indicator and lack of red ring, to its HUGE zoom ring, and tiny useless focusing ring. I don't need them to label it as an L, I'm not that pretentious, but I need it to be made out with a metal barrel and realistic zoom/focus rings.

 

[ksz]

...new general perpus lens...

I wish English could be as phonetically true as possible! I especially like the German spelling of 'fotograf.'

 

[jared_kipe]

I wish English could be as phonetically true as possible! I especially like the German spelling of 'fotograf.'

whoops, yeah I tried to spell that right a few times and gave up. Figuring I'd come back and right click it for the old auto spell check. But forgot...

 

[Grimace]

Namely the new EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 IS. If Canon will not bestow the beloved L label on a lens, they shouldn't expect me to reach into my pocket and pull out $1100 for it. I was recently deciding on a new general purpose lens, and it came down to the 24-70L 24-105LIS and the 17-55IS. From what I see, the 24-105mm is just not sharp enough to be a contender. And while the 17-55 is very sharp and I'd love the IS, looking at that lens makes it very obvious as to who its made for.

From its silver zoom indicator and lack of red ring, to its HUGE zoom ring, and tiny useless focusing ring. I don't need them to label it as an L, I'm not that pretentious, but I need it to be made out with a metal barrel and realistic zoom/focus rings.

Hey Jared, I have this lens and for what it's worth, I think it's fantastic. The build quality is solid and the pictures that it takes are L class worthy. It's not cheap, but I don't regret purchasing it for a second.

 

[jared_kipe]

Hey Jared, I have this lens and for what it's worth, I think it's fantastic. The build quality is solid and the pictures that it takes are L class worthy. It's not cheap, but I don't regret purchasing it for a second.

I know its a good lens. I'm not saying anyone is stupid for buying it. I just think its mean of Canon to kind of dumb down the lens.

Its sorta how Apple dumbed down the emac/mini/ibook lines from imac/powerbook/powermac lines. Except that in the case of the 17-55mm IS , it is the internals of a powermac but in a beige box. I simply refuse to pay so much money for a lens Canon won't bother calling L and giving it a proper suit.

EDIT: I considered buying all three lenses and doing a very special review/test of them all. But I didn't want to have the hassle of making sure I returned the two losers within the 14 days adorama lets me return things.

 

[sejanus]

what an absolute load of nonsense.

ffs how could you believe something like that

I like Nikon for film, but am exclusively Canon for digital. Why? Because I've had excellent luck with Canon and been told (cannot confirm this) by many-a prominent photographer and uni. photo teachers that Canon basically invented digital photography, thier Digic II is superior and when they advertise a certain megapixel # that is exactly the amount that the CCD is sensing. Apparently (cannot confirm this either) most manufactures may plop in a 7MP CCD but use software to extrapolate the data up to, say, 9MP.

 

[sejanus]

the problem with the d2h/s and the d2x/s regardless of sensor type (i.e. lbcast vs cmos) is not the amount of noise but the intrusive noise reduction the camera does at high iso.

even when you turn NR off, there still is some being done. They are extemely poor at high iso unfortunately.

Nikon's LBCAST sensors (D2H/s) produce fantastic images with low noise, but they are stuck at only around 4 MP. Nikon took a lot of heat for its delay in bringing out the D200, but once they did, they captured a fair bit of mindshare. In comparison, Canonites were dismayed by the 30D, and it seemed they were starting to become vocal protesters. Now Canon has announced the Digic III and will soon (we think) be announcing new pro-level bodies to go with that chip. So the tide is turning again in Canon's favor. Meanwhile, Nikonians are waiting for a FF surprise. If Nikon delivers such a thing, particularly if it includes a really well designed CMOS sensor, we may be on equal or near-equal footing.

It's been a game of one-upmanship and it will continue. Everyone will benefit as a result.

 

[beavo451]

I know its a good lens. I'm not saying anyone is stupid for buying it. I just think its mean of Canon to kind of dumb down the lens.

Its sorta how Apple dumbed down the emac/mini/ibook lines from imac/powerbook/powermac lines. Except that in the case of the 17-55mm IS , it is the internals of a powermac but in a beige box. I simply refuse to pay so much money for a lens Canon won't bother calling L and giving it a proper suit.

EDIT: I considered buying all three lenses and doing a very special review/test of them all. But I didn't want to have the hassle of making sure I returned the two losers within the 14 days adorama lets me return things.

You also realize that the "L" stands for the flourite coatings they put on certain lens elements in the "L" series right? If it doesn't have these coatings, it cannot carry the "L" designation.

Why the fixation of having a red ring and black (white) body? What did people do in the times of no L or ED glass, no autofocus, and no fancy metering systems?

 

[jared_kipe]

You also realize that the "L" stands for the flourite coatings they put on certain lens elements in the "L" series right? If it doesn't have these coatings, it cannot carry the "L" designation.

Why the fixation of having a red ring and black (white) body? What did people do in the times of no L or ED glass, no autofocus, and no fancy metering systems?

First of all, do your homework better. It isn't a fluorite "coating", it a lens element that is ground from a fluorite crystal instead of glass.

Secondly, not every L lens has a fluorite lens element. Here is a list. But it is difficult to tell if this is a lens specifically of fluorite lens elements, or simply an older list of lenses with UD or S-UD elements. Since if you click on the 24-70L and compare it to the 70-200f4L, the later has a symbol on the bottom of the page that says CaF2 which is the symbol for the fluorite lens elements. So if this symbol has to show up to have a fluorite element, then there are few L lenses that do in fact have one.
http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=CanonAdvantageTopicDtlAct&id=2641

And if you read it, you'll see that a S-UD element gives the same effect as a fluorite element, which the 17-55mm does have.

The things keeping the 17-55mm from being an L are not image quality related, but poor mechanical design and lack of a metal body.

If people recommend the 20D over the 350D because the 350D is small and doesn't feel right, then I can do the same thing at boycotting the 17-55mm based on its little tiny focusing ring, and oversized zoom ring. Not to mention every lens I have right now from both Canon and Sigma have the focusing ring towards the end of the lens, and the zoom towards the camera. A convention that the 17-55mm and all other "consumer" lenses simply do not adhere to. Its not the red ring I want (thats simply a metaphor) I want the overall build quality and control scheme.

 

[beavo451]

First of all, do your homework better. It isn't a fluorite "coating", it a lens element that is ground from a fluorite crystal instead of glass.

Secondly, not every L lens has a fluorite lens element. Here is a list. But it is difficult to tell if this is a lens specifically of fluorite lens elements, or simply an older list of lenses with UD or S-UD elements. Since if you click on the 24-70L and compare it to the 70-200f4L, the later has a symbol on the bottom of the page that says CaF2 which is the symbol for the fluorite lens elements. So if this symbol has to show up to have a fluorite element, then there are few L lenses that do in fact have one.
http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=CanonAdvantageTopicDtlAct&id=2641

And if you read it, you'll see that a S-UD element gives the same effect as a fluorite element, which the 17-55mm does have.

The things keeping the 17-55mm from being an L are not image quality related, but poor mechanical design and lack of a metal body.

If people recommend the 20D over the 350D because the 350D is small and doesn't feel right, then I can do the same thing at boycotting the 17-55mm based on its little tiny focusing ring, and oversized zoom ring. Not to mention every lens I have right now from both Canon and Sigma have the focusing ring towards the end of the lens, and the zoom towards the camera. A convention that the 17-55mm and all other "consumer" lenses simply do not adhere to. Its not the red ring I want (thats simply a metaphor) I want the overall build quality and control scheme.

I stand corrected. I think it is kind of dumb to have designations, but okay.

The L-series EF lenses (L for "Luxury") have high-performance glass elements to obtain higher resolution and excellent contrast. They include fluorite elements which effectively correct chromatic aberrations, UD elements which have low refraction and low dispersion characteristics, and ground aspherical elements.

Can't find anything about build quality being a requirement though, but I guess it is implied.

 

[snap58]

You also realize that the "L" stands for the flourite coatings they put on certain lens elements in the "L" series right? If it doesn't have these coatings, it cannot carry the "L" designation.

Why the fixation of having a red ring and black (white) body? What did people do in the times of no L or ED glass, no autofocus, and no fancy metering systems?

They bought the equipment that best suited them and took pictures. Just like they do now. : )

BTW, I could be wrong, but I believe the White bodies have more to due with solar gain, (black body / white body) as they only do this on the longer glass, not on the wides or medium TF's.

 

[beavo451]

They bought the equipment that best suited them and took pictures. Just like they do now. : )

BTW, I could be wrong, but I believe the White bodies have more to due with solar gain, (black body / white body) as they only do this on the longer glass, not on the wides or medium TF's.

I could be wrong as well, but I remember reading that the flourite glass used in the telephotos is heat sensitive and that is why the bodies are white. This is also the reason why Canon glass is not used in space optics. Of course, I haven't done my homework and this is all from memory.

 

[whocares]

I like Nikon for film, but am exclusively Canon for digital. Why? Because I've had excellent luck with Canon and been told (cannot confirm this) by many-a prominent photographer and uni. photo teachers that Canon basically invented digital photography, thier Digic II is superior and when they advertise a certain megapixel # that is exactly the amount that the CCD is sensing. Apparently (cannot confirm this either) most manufactures may plop in a 7MP CCD but use software to extrapolate the data up to, say, 9MP.

Some would argue Apple entered the digital photography world before Canon and Nikon.

 

[whocares]

Of course we Nikonians counter with the 1200-1700mm Zoom lens

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/zoomsMF/12001700mm.htm

And don't forget the Nikkor 6mm f/5.6 that can actually see behind the camera.

Really?

Nikon has:
AF - auto focus mechanically coupled to the camera
AF-I - motor built into the lens, but not the high end silent wave type
AF-S - these have motor built in but use the "silent wave" and allow full time manual over-ride (think Canon USM type)
DX - Made for the crop digital SLR's, like Canon EF-S
VR - vibration reduction
IF - internal front focus
RF - internal rear focus
G - these are newest lenses, no aperture rings, no manual cameras
ED - extra low dispersion glass

You forgot:

pre-AI - real oldschool stuff!
AI - auto indexing (ok, it's pre-AF...)
AI-S - auto indexing ??? (still some production)
AI-P - auto indexing + built-in processor
TS - tilt + shift
DC - defocus control
AF-D - distance information is given to the camera


And then you can have some fun:

AF-S are all AF-D.
AF-D are all AF (duh!).
And AF are all AI-S.
And lastly all AI-S are AI.

This means that any (non DX) AF-S should work on any camera that was designed for AI lenses with only minor feature losses (mostly loss of AF).
This also means that any AI lens can be mounted on cameras designed for
for AF/AF-D but with possible lack of many feature: matrix metering, auto diaphragm, etc (modern Nikons lack the mechanical slugs to "read" AI lenses).

And as an AF-S DX is still an AF-S and hence an AI, it will work on 20+ year cameras but with it only fill part of the frame.

But careful, an AF-G lens is not an AI lens (nor is an AF-G DX) and thus won't work on cameras not designed for AF-G lenses. The main difference between AF-G and all other Nikkor lenses is that the diaphragm can only be electronically operated.

This marks a 180 degree turn in Nikon camera/lens manufacture. It is still possible to use a modified 1960-1970s lens on a D200 and not loose any functionality (apart obviously for auto focus). Likewise you can use most non-DX lenses on a 1960-1970s Nikon F or F2 with little modification: you just need to add a small metal bracket for aperture coupling (the pilot holes for this bracket is still/was recently still present on many new AF lenses).


So to summarise a somewhat long post:
1. Nikon's letter soup is quite helpful once you understand it;
2. Nikon has managed to preserve backward compatibility for 30+ years (!) though this has been fading over the last 5 years to accommodate recent technological improvements.

 

[ScubaDuc]

I believe the "ED" on the Nikon Lens would for the most part be the high end glass, it stands for "Extra-low Dispersion", which I think they use in lieu of Fluorite Glass Canon uses. You will note all their super telephoto's are ED.

The "AF" of course is auto-focus, but this is confusing to me, A Nikon friend of mine tried to explain once, (where is Chip when you need him) I may be wrong but I think this is correct,

AF - auto focus mechanically coupled to the camera
AF-I - motor built into the lens, but not the high end silent wave type
AF-S - these have motor built in but use the "silent wave" and allow full time manual over-ride (think Canon USM type)
DX - Made for the crop digital SLR's, like Canon EF-S
VR - vibration reduction
IF - internal front focus
RF - internal rear focus
G - these are newest lenses, no aperture rings, no manual cameras
ED - extra low dispersion glass

I'm sure the Nikon folks can add to / correct this.

Surely...

AI for Automatic Index
PC for Prospective Control

Also, did not see in the lens list (but I might have missed it):
55 mm micro-nikkor (an all time favorite)
500 mm reflex
PC 28 mm
200 medical Nikkor (with bulid-in ring flash)
43-86 one-touch zoom
35-70 macro

 

[Clix Pix]

Surely...

PC for Prospective Control

It's "PC" for "Perspective Control."

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

The things keeping the 17-55mm from being an L are not image quality related, but poor mechanical design and lack of a metal body.

Partially true on construction details.

BUT IMO it is that the 17-55 is an EF-S lens designed for digital, not the 24x36mm format.

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

I like Nikon for film, but am exclusively Canon for digital. Why? Because I've had excellent luck with Canon and been told (cannot confirm this) by many-a prominent photographer and uni. photo teachers that Canon basically invented digital photography, thier Digic II is superior

Canon did have an early start in digital photography, but IMO it may have been Apple with the Quicktake digital cameras that may have started the revolution. With Olympus being the one that popularized it. But it was TI that first tried the idea of filmless photography back in 1973.

For a good history check out this Wikilink:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_camera#History

What Canon did was "mature" the digital camera.By taking and developing the Digic chip for faster processing of the images. They also for their DSLR's started to make their own CMOS sensors.

and when they advertise a certain megapixel # that is exactly the amount that the CCD is sensing. Apparently (cannot confirm this either) most manufactures may plop in a 7MP CCD but use software to extrapolate the data up to, say, 9MP.

A bit of bunk here. AFAIK, Fuji is the only one that uses interpolation for greater pixel count with their Supper CCD's.

 

[jared_kipe]

Partially true on construction details.

BUT IMO it is that the 17-55 is an EF-S lens designed for digital, not the 24x36mm format.

Yeah, but they gave an "L" designation to the Powershot Pro 1 digital camera. So I see no reason why they can't make a L lens for cropped bodies.

And don't forget the Nikkor 6mm f/5.6 that can actually see behind the camera.

I've heard of this, but I think its a superstition. I do not see how one could bend light that is coming from behind you, it would be the equivalent of a negative mm focal length. There is something that does that, but we call it a mirror, not a 6mm lens.

If you look at the dome, and imagine light coming from slightly behind the front of the lens, you see it will have to impact at a very severe angle. This would cause most of the light to bounce off. And I cann't see how the light that doesn't bounce off would make it into the rest of the lens.

 

[beavo451]

Yeah, but they gave an "L" designation to the Powershot Pro 1 digital camera. So I see no reason why they can't make a L lens for cropped bodies.


I've heard of this, but I think its a superstition. I do not see how one could bend light that is coming from behind you, it would be the equivalent of a negative mm focal length. There is something that does that, but we call it a mirror, not a 6mm lens.

If you look at the dome, and imagine light coming from slightly behind the front of the lens, you see it will have to impact at a very severe angle. This would cause most of the light to bounce off. And I cann't see how the light that doesn't bounce off would make it into the rest of the lens.

So where does the other 40 degrees of the 220° FOV come from?

EDIT: found an image

Notice that you can see "below" where the camera was at if it was pointed straight up.

http://www.nearfield.com/~dan/Photo/wide/fish/

 

[jared_kipe]

So where does the other 40 degrees of the 220° FOV come from?

EDIT: found an image

Notice that you can see "below" where the camera was at if it was pointed straight up.

http://www.nearfield.com/~dan/Photo/wide/fish/

I have no idea, it just doesn't make sense from an optics point of view.

 

[sjl]

If you look at the dome, and imagine light coming from slightly behind the front of the lens, you see it will have to impact at a very severe angle. This would cause most of the light to bounce off. And I cann't see how the light that doesn't bounce off would make it into the rest of the lens.

Well, if light hits an interface between elements at a 90 degree angle, it will go straight ahead. At a lesser angle than that, it will be bent at an angle that depends upon the refraction index of the materials at the interface. eg: when light enters glass from air, it will be bent towards the direction of the interface; if it enters air from glass, it will be bent away from the direction of the interface.

So I'd say that the key is the interface as the light moves out of the first element it hits. If it's angled just right relative to the angle of incidence where the light comes in, I can definitely see a fisheye being able to see 'behind' itself. You'd be talking about a severe curve on both sides of the front element, with the rear curve being more severe curve than the forward curve, but I don't see it as utterly impossible.

Have a look at this PDF for the construction of the original 220 degree FOV fisheye.