From: Sosumi on

"Alan Calan" <alancalan(a)excite.com> wrote in message
news:cv23l3psrm3hmp9m6n9vvm7ddt387b7jd9(a)4ax.com...
>I am not trying to start a flame war but I have received presents from
> a recent birthday that get me really close to a D200 body. As some of
> you might remember, I have an F5 with some Ok lenses.
>
> Tokina ATX Pro 28-70mm 1:2.6-2.8 It
> will be about $100 to fix again, if it ever works right again.
>
> Tamron SP 90mm AF Macro 1:2.8
>
> Nikon ED AF Nikor 70-300mm 1:4-5.6
>
> Kenko-Tokina N-AFd 2x teleconverter MC7
>
> None of my lenses are AF-S. This is not a great investment in lenses.
> I have an SB28 and a Stoboframe flash bracket with the NC17 adapter
>
> That is it.
>
> So then I started reading Ken Rockwell as someone posted this site
> about the D300. Between that side that the Full Frame article linked I
> saw that the Cannon 5D totally blows away all of the Nikons, except
> for the D3
>
> Looking at the pictures of the stuffed animal even at ISOs 100, 200
> and 400, the clarity, sharpness and resolution are so far superior to
> the Nikons presented that you'd have to be crazy to get a D300 over
> and 5D. For me the same is true for the D200 and the D40.
>
> I have never cheered on Canon until right now. The 5D is only a
> littler more than the D300 and an extra little more than the D200.
>
> My only question is, are these results fully representative of the
> Cameras' abilities because if they are, before I'd buy a D300, I'd buy
> a 5D. I wonder if the results are dependent on lens quality more than
> Full Frame. I they are dependent on Full Frame only, why the hell did
> Nikon do the D300 without full frame?


First of all: it�s about in camera noise reduction. Different pictures and
situations make different pictures. Turn the noise reduction of and the
Canons are beaten hands down.

The fullframe you want is the Nikon D3. Much like the D300 but with full
frame and extra's.
Funny if you go over to Canon. I just read here or somewhere else, that many
photojournalist jump to Nikon because of the D300 and D3..

--
"I don�t need a camera,
I have a photographic memory..."
Sosumi


From: Alan Calan on
Frank, great question,

My son just got married and I took a few rolls of pictures. They were
pretty good but not as good as those the pros took, with their D200s
and Mamiya larger format camera. But as great as they were, somewhat
due to a partly overcast day, lots of very green grass and big full
trees (at the end of Aug), beautiful girls in purple dresses, good
looking young guys in tuxedos and a gorgeous bride, if you look really
close they could be even better, even sharper just exploding out at
you, like the new LCD TVs.

I will never have the photographic eye that some of you have or at
least not until the mechanics become second nature in getting to the
perfectly captured image. Then and only then can someone like me be
free to focus on composition. In school, I could not write to save my
life. With the introduction to word processors and spelling and
grammar checkers I became free to express my thoughts.

To me a great picture is like hitting a golf ball straight down the
middle for 300 yards. It is something that will continue after I am
gone. If a great lens or a better designed camera can help me get
there and the price is within my means, what right does anyone have to
criticize that?

In problem solving, you clear up many of the extraneous little
problems first so that you can better see what is at issue. I want to
take what I think are great pictures and how I get there might be up
for discussion but the final choices are mine. I don't know if you
saw it but I also posted something about Lark Books, which I am having
my daughter buy for my birthday, even if I have to pay for them.

Also, a truly good digital slr is like a work study program. Unless
you are shooting and developing and printing immediately and often it
is very hard to learn from your mistakes because who remembers the
mistakes. With digital you see it right there and then you can do it
again the right way.

So, if you can afford it, why not get what you want because if it
works for you, you might make it larger part of your life and during
the successes you also due what is necessary to do it better.






On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 14:08:07 -0500, "Frank Arthur" <Art(a)Arthurian.com>
wrote:

>
>"Alan Calan" <alancalan(a)excite.com> wrote in message
>news:cv23l3psrm3hmp9m6n9vvm7ddt387b7jd9(a)4ax.com...
>>I am not trying to start a flame war but I have received presents
>>from
>> a recent birthday that get me really close to a D200 body. As some
>> of
>> you might remember, I have an F5 with some Ok lenses.
>>
>> Tokina ATX Pro 28-70mm 1:2.6-2.8 It
>> will be about $100 to fix again, if it ever works right again.
>>
>> Tamron SP 90mm AF Macro 1:2.8
>>
>> Nikon ED AF Nikor 70-300mm 1:4-5.6
>>
>> Kenko-Tokina N-AFd 2x teleconverter MC7
>>
>> None of my lenses are AF-S. This is not a great investment in
>> lenses.
>> I have an SB28 and a Stoboframe flash bracket with the NC17 adapter
>>
>> That is it.
>>
>> So then I started reading Ken Rockwell as someone posted this site
>> about the D300. Between that side that the Full Frame article linked
>> I
>> saw that the Cannon 5D totally blows away all of the Nikons, except
>> for the D3
>>
>> Looking at the pictures of the stuffed animal even at ISOs 100, 200
>> and 400, the clarity, sharpness and resolution are so far superior
>> to
>> the Nikons presented that you'd have to be crazy to get a D300 over
>> and 5D. For me the same is true for the D200 and the D40.
>>
>> I have never cheered on Canon until right now. The 5D is only a
>> littler more than the D300 and an extra little more than the D200.
>>
>> My only question is, are these results fully representative of the
>> Cameras' abilities because if they are, before I'd buy a D300, I'd
>> buy
>> a 5D. I wonder if the results are dependent on lens quality more
>> than
>> Full Frame. I they are dependent on Full Frame only, why the hell
>> did
>> Nikon do the D300 without full frame?
>>
>> http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d300.htm
>>
>> http://kenrockwell.com/tech/full-frame-advantage.htm
>
>If you feel that your photographic abilities have reached your such
>high level of expertise and abilities you should go for the best most
>expensive camera body and lenses made. Apparently
>you consider images produced by Nikon D40, D70,D80,D200 & D300 users
>are "lesser"
>images. I am a bit puzzled by your previous posts in which you
>complained of not getting what you set out to get and you have a Nikon
>F5 and Nikon SB28 flash. What is puzzling was that you went for
>Nikon's best film camera (for it's time) but then chose a slew of
>second rate lenses (with the exeption of the Nikon 70-300ED).
>Ordinary mortals who can live with needle sharp, 11x14 dependable
>images who use simple Nikon D40, D70,D80,D200 or D300 cameras who use
>the newer Nikon DX "S" VR lenses
>may continue in their ignorant bliss. These users enjoy their
>photography and their photographs and these aren't the ones writing in
>complaining why I missed my best shots.
>
From: Alan Calan on
Frank, One more thing,

A bunch of years ago I ran a reunion. I hired a professional
photographer to photograph the dinner dance portion of the weekend. I
saw her portfolio and I was in awe of what she had done.

She showed up with one of the smaller Canon slr cameras and flash that
was much less powerful than my SB28. I took all the pictures for
Friday's arrivals, dinner of Friday night, all of Saturday's
activities, from breakfast to our softball game (when our team was at
bat). I also did the Sunday brunch.

My pictures were great. That Tokina lens is was a very special lens
before it dropped on concrete, with the camera...that Nikon checked
and said was fine.

The pro's pictures were Ok with far too little light coming from one
source in the hot shoe. I was surprised there was no red eye but
without auto focus and a nice sized flash, not to mention no secondary
flash as a slave, the photos needed lots of work. I hard to sharpen
up a few, crop the huge dark areas out of almost every one of them. I
had Kodak CD's made so I was able to crop and expand without losing
all the resolution.



On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 14:08:07 -0500, "Frank Arthur" <Art(a)Arthurian.com>
wrote:

>If you feel that your photographic abilities have reached your such
>high level of expertise and abilities you should go for the best most
>expensive camera body and lenses made. Apparently
>you consider images produced by Nikon D40, D70,D80,D200 & D300 users
>are "lesser"
>images. I am a bit puzzled by your previous posts in which you
>complained of not getting what you set out to get and you have a Nikon
>F5 and Nikon SB28 flash. What is puzzling was that you went for
>Nikon's best film camera (for it's time) but then chose a slew of
>second rate lenses (with the exeption of the Nikon 70-300ED).
>Ordinary mortals who can live with needle sharp, 11x14 dependable
>images who use simple Nikon D40, D70,D80,D200 or D300 cameras who use
>the newer Nikon DX "S" VR lenses
>may continue in their ignorant bliss. These users enjoy their
>photography and their photographs and these aren't the ones writing in
>complaining why I missed my best shots.
>


>
>"Alan Calan" <alancalan(a)excite.com> wrote in message
>news:cv23l3psrm3hmp9m6n9vvm7ddt387b7jd9(a)4ax.com...
>>I am not trying to start a flame war but I have received presents
>>from
>> a recent birthday that get me really close to a D200 body. As some
>> of
>> you might remember, I have an F5 with some Ok lenses.
>>
>> Tokina ATX Pro 28-70mm 1:2.6-2.8 It
>> will be about $100 to fix again, if it ever works right again.
>>
>> Tamron SP 90mm AF Macro 1:2.8
>>
>> Nikon ED AF Nikor 70-300mm 1:4-5.6
>>
>> Kenko-Tokina N-AFd 2x teleconverter MC7
>>
>> None of my lenses are AF-S. This is not a great investment in
>> lenses.
>> I have an SB28 and a Stoboframe flash bracket with the NC17 adapter
>>
>> That is it.
>>
>> So then I started reading Ken Rockwell as someone posted this site
>> about the D300. Between that side that the Full Frame article linked
>> I
>> saw that the Cannon 5D totally blows away all of the Nikons, except
>> for the D3
>>
>> Looking at the pictures of the stuffed animal even at ISOs 100, 200
>> and 400, the clarity, sharpness and resolution are so far superior
>> to
>> the Nikons presented that you'd have to be crazy to get a D300 over
>> and 5D. For me the same is true for the D200 and the D40.
>>
>> I have never cheered on Canon until right now. The 5D is only a
>> littler more than the D300 and an extra little more than the D200.
>>
>> My only question is, are these results fully representative of the
>> Cameras' abilities because if they are, before I'd buy a D300, I'd
>> buy
>> a 5D. I wonder if the results are dependent on lens quality more
>> than
>> Full Frame. I they are dependent on Full Frame only, why the hell
>> did
>> Nikon do the D300 without full frame?
>>
>> http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d300.htm
>>
>> http://kenrockwell.com/tech/full-frame-advantage.htm
>
>If you feel that your photographic abilities have reached your such
>high level of expertise and abilities you should go for the best most
>expensive camera body and lenses made. Apparently
>you consider images produced by Nikon D40, D70,D80,D200 & D300 users
>are "lesser"
>images. I am a bit puzzled by your previous posts in which you
>complained of not getting what you set out to get and you have a Nikon
>F5 and Nikon SB28 flash. What is puzzling was that you went for
>Nikon's best film camera (for it's time) but then chose a slew of
>second rate lenses (with the exeption of the Nikon 70-300ED).
>Ordinary mortals who can live with needle sharp, 11x14 dependable
>images who use simple Nikon D40, D70,D80,D200 or D300 cameras who use
>the newer Nikon DX "S" VR lenses
>may continue in their ignorant bliss. These users enjoy their
>photography and their photographs and these aren't the ones writing in
>complaining why I missed my best shots.
>
From: Alan Calan on
On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 21:32:48 -0000, "Sosumi" <sosumi(a)home.nl> wrote:

I am not running to Canon that fast but I might wait for a D400 that
is full frame, if that really does make a huge difference.

>
>"Alan Calan" <alancalan(a)excite.com> wrote in message
>news:cv23l3psrm3hmp9m6n9vvm7ddt387b7jd9(a)4ax.com...
>>I am not trying to start a flame war but I have received presents from
>> a recent birthday that get me really close to a D200 body. As some of
>> you might remember, I have an F5 with some Ok lenses.
>>
>> Tokina ATX Pro 28-70mm 1:2.6-2.8 It
>> will be about $100 to fix again, if it ever works right again.
>>
>> Tamron SP 90mm AF Macro 1:2.8
>>
>> Nikon ED AF Nikor 70-300mm 1:4-5.6
>>
>> Kenko-Tokina N-AFd 2x teleconverter MC7
>>
>> None of my lenses are AF-S. This is not a great investment in lenses.
>> I have an SB28 and a Stoboframe flash bracket with the NC17 adapter
>>
>> That is it.
>>
>> So then I started reading Ken Rockwell as someone posted this site
>> about the D300. Between that side that the Full Frame article linked I
>> saw that the Cannon 5D totally blows away all of the Nikons, except
>> for the D3
>>
>> Looking at the pictures of the stuffed animal even at ISOs 100, 200
>> and 400, the clarity, sharpness and resolution are so far superior to
>> the Nikons presented that you'd have to be crazy to get a D300 over
>> and 5D. For me the same is true for the D200 and the D40.
>>
>> I have never cheered on Canon until right now. The 5D is only a
>> littler more than the D300 and an extra little more than the D200.
>>
>> My only question is, are these results fully representative of the
>> Cameras' abilities because if they are, before I'd buy a D300, I'd buy
>> a 5D. I wonder if the results are dependent on lens quality more than
>> Full Frame. I they are dependent on Full Frame only, why the hell did
>> Nikon do the D300 without full frame?
>
>
>First of all: it�s about in camera noise reduction. Different pictures and
>situations make different pictures. Turn the noise reduction of and the
>Canons are beaten hands down.
>
>The fullframe you want is the Nikon D3. Much like the D300 but with full
>frame and extra's.
>Funny if you go over to Canon. I just read here or somewhere else, that many
>photojournalist jump to Nikon because of the D300 and D3..
From: Paul Furman on
Sosumi wrote:
> "Alan Calan" <alancalan(a)excite.com> wrote in message
> news:cv23l3psrm3hmp9m6n9vvm7ddt387b7jd9(a)4ax.com...
>> I am not trying to start a flame war but I have received presents from
>> a recent birthday that get me really close to a D200 body. As some of
>> you might remember, I have an F5 with some Ok lenses.
>>
>> Tokina ATX Pro 28-70mm 1:2.6-2.8 It
>> will be about $100 to fix again, if it ever works right again.
>>
>> Tamron SP 90mm AF Macro 1:2.8
>>
>> Nikon ED AF Nikor 70-300mm 1:4-5.6
>>
>> Kenko-Tokina N-AFd 2x teleconverter MC7
>>
>> None of my lenses are AF-S. This is not a great investment in lenses.
>> I have an SB28 and a Stoboframe flash bracket with the NC17 adapter
>>
>> That is it.
>>
>> So then I started reading Ken Rockwell as someone posted this site
>> about the D300. Between that side that the Full Frame article linked I
>> saw that the Cannon 5D totally blows away all of the Nikons, except
>> for the D3
>>
>> Looking at the pictures of the stuffed animal even at ISOs 100, 200
>> and 400, the clarity, sharpness and resolution are so far superior to
>> the Nikons presented that you'd have to be crazy to get a D300 over
>> and 5D. For me the same is true for the D200 and the D40.
>>
>> I have never cheered on Canon until right now. The 5D is only a
>> littler more than the D300 and an extra little more than the D200.
>>
>> My only question is, are these results fully representative of the
>> Cameras' abilities because if they are, before I'd buy a D300, I'd buy
>> a 5D. I wonder if the results are dependent on lens quality more than
>> Full Frame. I they are dependent on Full Frame only, why the hell did
>> Nikon do the D300 without full frame?
>
>
> First of all: it�s about in camera noise reduction. Different pictures and
> situations make different pictures. Turn the noise reduction of and the
> Canons are beaten hands down.
>
> The fullframe you want is the Nikon D3. Much like the D300 but with full
> frame and extra's.
> Funny if you go over to Canon. I just read here or somewhere else, that many
> photojournalist jump to Nikon because of the D300 and D3..

I'm a big Nikon enthusiast and still I think for Alan's situation the 5D
might be a better choice. The D3 looks spectacular but costs another
$2000 over the 5D and it is huge.

However... I think Ken R's tests regarding sharpness are flawed. The
advantages of full frame are low light high ISO performance and dynamic
range, *not* sharpness or color rendition as he claims.

And yes the lenses in your kit are not going to improve between an
$1,800 body or $5,000 body because the lens *is* what matters more than
the camera apart from high ISO & dynamic range. If you were willing to
haul around that huge pro D3 & get a couple more nice prime lenses, that
would be a good setup. It'll cost a lot to get all new Canon lenses good
enough to take full advantage of the sensor over an APS DSLR.

Also note that the 5D is not a very robust camera. The cost savings
means a less durable body which is considerably outdone by a D200/300
especially compared to your old F5 tank. Go to a store & handle them to see.