Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Ergonomics above all?
- Thread starter srt4cane
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
However one can certainly put ANY of Nikon's lenses, including AF, AI and AI-S ones, on the camera and manually focus........ Manual focus works quite well, and in some applications is critical (macro photography, for instance). One advantage Nikon offers over Canon is that all of their lenses (or at least the greater majority of them) will mount on current Nikon DSLR bodies. The same cannot be said for Canon. There are lenses which cannot be used on the Digital Rebel bodies, for instance, which would somewhat be an impedance in slowly and gradually developing one's lens kit.
Nikon offers fisheyes in both DX and FX: the 10.5 is in DX, to give a fisheye look to their DSLRs with the 1.5x "crop factor." They also have the 16mm fisheye which is used on full-frame cameras. I'm eager to see how that will look on the new D3! On a DX camera body it simply looks wide.
Macro: Nikon offers several macro lenses, including some which are not fully dedicated macros (35-70mm comes to mind here) and those which are: 60mm, 105mm VR, 200mm. There are also nice older macro lenses in the 55mm range. The 105mm VR is AF-S and so can be used as an autofocus lens with the D40/D40x. The others will manually focus just fine on those cameras. In fact, when I shoot macro, 99.9% of the time I use manual focus anyway, so the lack of autofocus is somewhat of a moot point.
Sorry. I should have said 300 mm f/4 AFS VR lens, because that's what I was talking about. I'm sure I got the message a bit mixed up by also wanting a 70-200 mm f/4. I should have said it needs AF-S and VR because it'll likely be aimed at the consumer level, just like the D40.
The 300 mm f/4 really does need to be updated to include, though. It's a long, expensive lens, and the VR feature seems like the new "AF-S".
The D40/D40x doesn't meter AI/AI-S lenses. From the Nikon USA site:
Compatible Lenses*1: Nikon F mount with AF coupling and AF contacts Type G or D AF Nikkor
1) AF-S, AF-I: All functions supported
2) Other Type G or D AF Nikkor: All functions supported except autofocus
3) PC Micro-Nikkor 85mm f/2.8D: Can only be used in mode M; all other functions supported except autofocus
4) Other AF Nikkor*1/AI-P Nikkor: All functions supported except autofocus and 3D Color Matrix Metering II
5) Non-CPU: Can be used in mode M, but exposure meter does not function; electronic range finder can be used if maximum aperture is f/5.6 or faster
6) IX Nikkor lenses cannot be used
*1. Excluding lenses for F3AF
But true. All else being equal, CCDs will produce less noise. The extra internal electronics required at each pixel of a CMOS sensor makes the photosensitive part of each pixel smaller. The photo-sensitive part of each CCD is bigger, and obviously takes in more light. CMOS progression will hit a wall faster than CCDs because of this. Microlenses placed at each site minimize the difference, but doesn't eliminate it.
Canon is successful with their CMOS technology because they have a patented way of reducing noise, and I don't think anyone else is allowed to use their method. So even if you make a fantastic CMOS sensor, doesn't necessarily mean you're going to get noise levels comparable to Canon, or the large majority of CCDs.
The comment about harshness was with respect to the tone of the response.
Nikon's latest crop of sensors (D300/D2X/D3X) are all CMOS-based. I imagine there's a good reason for it.
They're cheaper and easier to make.
He's right about the noise, in principle, CMOS sensors are worse, although I wouldn't really care about anything, but the results.
Up to a point, I'd agree. The D3 (and the D2x, a copy of which I've had for 2.5 years) are not particularly sensitive to cost. These are pro bodies, and cost is secondary to image quality.
I'm not a sensor engineer, so I'm not going to try to make a technical argument for a device that is outside my area of expertise. I will unequivocally agree with your last statement - it's all about the results.
Regardless of auto/manual focus or auto/manual metering, these lenses can still be used on Nikon cameras of any generation.
You young folks don't appreciate that there was a time when we had to --gasp! -- not only manually focus all of our shots but we had to also use an external meter, too......
Guess what? People managed to produce nice photographs anyway!
Not manual metering, NO metering. Zippo. Nada. AI/AI-S lenses fall into category 5 in that list.
By the way, I'm 51. My first Nikon was an FE that I bought new in 1980 (and I worked 2 jobs to buy that sucker). I still have it even. The shutter died in 2003, prompting me to buy a D100 (which was my 4th digital camera and 1st DSLR).
Clix Pix, I agree thats an advantage of Nikons system. Especially in terms of buying an old macro lens, Ive been envious of my friends who use Nikon and wish I could buy those cheap pre-EOS Canon lenses and use them for anything other than decoration. On the other hand, while the lack of autofocus is something most people should be able to deal with, the lack of metering isnt something your typical user would be able to use very well.
But thats just my intended point. There are lots of advantages and disadvantages of each system (and each camera). It all really depends on ones particular preferences and priorities.
But thats just my intended point. There are lots of advantages and disadvantages of each system (and each camera). It all really depends on ones particular preferences and priorities.
Nope- any high-volume product is sensitive to cost. Look at the price of MF digital bodies-- the sensor is the single-most expensive discrete component. Let's say there was a $20/unit price difference and Nikon produced 250,000 D2 series cameras... (D3 production is said to be about 12,000 units/month at this point so it seems like a reasonably conservative number.)
The technical arguments are all very well documented on the Internet. NASA in particular has been very good about documenting and documenting the evolution of CMOS designs as they've improved over time.
I agree, however the irony is that digital makes that trivial with the LCD and histogram.
back to the topic.
srt4cane: I don't understand why the lack of internal focusing is a problem for you if you don't have a lot of old lenses ?
I bought a D40x-kit with 18-55 and 55-200 lenses and a SB-400 flash.
This will last some time before I know if the next lens will be wider than 18 or longer than 200.
Because I didn't have any old lenses to care about I could choose whatever brand I wanted, but for me the feel of the Nikon is much better than the Canon.
I prefer the distinct touch of the buttons and the grip, it's like when I prefer the SonyEricsson mobile phones instead of Nokia, I can't stand the plasticky (?) feel and fuzzy buttons of the Nokia.
I think that it's more about the man (woman) behind the camera than the hardware if you get a good picture or not.
I've seen "amatures" producing far better pictures than "pros" who have worked for more than 30 years as photographers.
srt4cane: I don't understand why the lack of internal focusing is a problem for you if you don't have a lot of old lenses ?
I bought a D40x-kit with 18-55 and 55-200 lenses and a SB-400 flash.
This will last some time before I know if the next lens will be wider than 18 or longer than 200.
Because I didn't have any old lenses to care about I could choose whatever brand I wanted, but for me the feel of the Nikon is much better than the Canon.
I prefer the distinct touch of the buttons and the grip, it's like when I prefer the SonyEricsson mobile phones instead of Nokia, I can't stand the plasticky (?) feel and fuzzy buttons of the Nokia.
I think that it's more about the man (woman) behind the camera than the hardware if you get a good picture or not.
I've seen "amatures" producing far better pictures than "pros" who have worked for more than 30 years as photographers.
Back to the OP's question:
Yes, for me, ergonomics does trump almost everything else. If a camera doesn't feel good in your hand, you will be less likely to want to drag it around with you. If it's not comfortable and convenient for how to shoot, you will not take best advantage of the features it does offer.
The cameras that I enjoy the handling of include:
Nikon D70, D80, D200
Pentax *ist series, K100D, K10D
Some of these cameras are bigger, some are smaller, but they all have a grip that suits me. They also have a nice secure feel (sturdy frames, good grippy coverings.)
I am not a fan of the Nikon D40/X -- the plastic body feels like it will slip from my hand, and it is noticably lighter/chintzier than every other Nikon body. The Canon Rebels leave me with the same feeling, and I find the Canon interface very confusing and non-intuitive. The Sony and Olympus cameras are VERY difficult to hold --- they seem to give my hands instant cramps, and feel plasticky.
I haven't handled every camera -- notably pro-level Canons. But I spent time with every consumer to mid-level body I could find at local stores before I decided that Pentax suited me the most. I liked the features, but most importantly, it was comfortable in my hand, the viewfinder was just right, and the controls fell exactly where I expected them too. As a result, I haven't needed to touch the instruction manual since the first day. Everything just works the way I expect it to.
Yes, for me, ergonomics does trump almost everything else. If a camera doesn't feel good in your hand, you will be less likely to want to drag it around with you. If it's not comfortable and convenient for how to shoot, you will not take best advantage of the features it does offer.
The cameras that I enjoy the handling of include:
Nikon D70, D80, D200
Pentax *ist series, K100D, K10D
Some of these cameras are bigger, some are smaller, but they all have a grip that suits me. They also have a nice secure feel (sturdy frames, good grippy coverings.)
I am not a fan of the Nikon D40/X -- the plastic body feels like it will slip from my hand, and it is noticably lighter/chintzier than every other Nikon body. The Canon Rebels leave me with the same feeling, and I find the Canon interface very confusing and non-intuitive. The Sony and Olympus cameras are VERY difficult to hold --- they seem to give my hands instant cramps, and feel plasticky.
I haven't handled every camera -- notably pro-level Canons. But I spent time with every consumer to mid-level body I could find at local stores before I decided that Pentax suited me the most. I liked the features, but most importantly, it was comfortable in my hand, the viewfinder was just right, and the controls fell exactly where I expected them too. As a result, I haven't needed to touch the instruction manual since the first day. Everything just works the way I expect it to.
The Nikon it is. They make a 10.5mm fisheye for cropped cameras. Canon doesn't have anything comparable. Unless you go with the Tokina (I think?) 10-17mm fisheye zoom.
To the OP's original question, yea ergonmics is important to me. I held both a 40d and an XTI and with the xti I noticed I needed to put my finger underneeth the grip in order to get a good feel for it, or try and cram it in. It didn't bother me one bit, but I guess that's just me. As soon as I got the battery grip, I haven't taken it off. It just feels 100x better with the grip.
for whatever it's worth-i got the canon rebel xt when it came out as it was the only option at the time that i could afford. i felt that it was too smal and still do, but i really did get used to it. not that big of a deal.
having said that, if you can afford to get the camera that feels right, go ahead and do it-it will be cheaper in the long run.
i would stress too much about lenses at first either, save that for later
having said that, if you can afford to get the camera that feels right, go ahead and do it-it will be cheaper in the long run.
i would stress too much about lenses at first either, save that for later