From: flambe on
I can assure you without ever seeing any of your photographs that any of the
cameras you mention technically exceed both your aesthetic capablilites and
certainly those of Ken Rockwell.


From: acl on
On Dec 2, 2:49 am, Paul Furman <pa...@-edgehill.net> wrote:
> Sosumi wrote:
> > "Alan Calan" <alanca...(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.

OK, but to bring this discussion back to earth, here are some
thoughts:

if you shoot jpegs or convert the way most people seem to you won't
see this DR; you won't see it anyway below ISO 400 or so, probably.

If you play for a while with sharpening at different radii (ie spatial
frequencies), you'll soon work out that the biggest single difference
(ignoring colour differences) between raw converters (and jpegs from
different cameras) is in which of these frequencies get emphasised
more.

The 20d and 5d do feel a lot less satisfying than a d200 in all
respects, but they're hardly not robust! and so on.

And a lot more but you get the idea.

Anyway, a larger sensor does have its advantages, but it seems to me
that in this case it'll be like a first-time car buyer a porsche
because it'll get him to the corner shop faster than a bike.
From: Alan Calan on
Well, there you go. I just looked and saw the IS in the lens. I
assumed it was on a tripod, so would that make a noticeable
difference?

If the larger sensors are doing it, then that is a valid difference
between the 5D and the D300 and the D200 and should affect a purchase
decision.

Actually, I saw the stuffed animal in a Bloomingdale's catalogue that
came in the mail today




On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 16:37:36 -0500, M-M <nospam.m-m(a)ny.more> wrote:

>In article
><dcf965f8-19c5-47ae-bec1-5c430c6f1709(a)y5g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> HankB <hbarta(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Dec 1, 1:15 pm, Alan Calan <alanca...(a)excite.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Actually, maybe it's not the full frame at all but rather Canon's
>> > sharper focusing mechanisms,
>>
>> Or maybe it's the post processing done in the camera. Try fooling
>> around with unsharp mask using your favorite PP program to see what a
>> difference it makes.
>>
>> -hank
>
>
>The sensors are not equal (full-frame makes a big difference at high
>ISO's), the lenses are *completely* different (the Canon is
>image-stabilized and the Nikon is a Macro lens with a whole lot more
>glass to look through) and the post-processing is not equal.
>
>But the stuffed animal was the same, so that makes it ok in Kens' book I
>guess.
From: RichA on
On Dec 1, 2:15 pm, Alan Calan <alanca...(a)excite.com> wrote:
> I deal with statistics, studies and reports all the time and I know
> how slanted they can be and even sometimes unintentionally.
>
> What I don't understand is can Nikon be that stupid to present a new
> product that is highly inferior to one of its major competition. Every
> picture Ken Rockwell showed, be they macros or distance shots were far
> more sharp or in focus than those of the D300 and D200. Where the
> white on the animals head looked like rice in the photo by the 5D, it
> looked like cream of wheat and the two prosumer Nikons.
>
> From what I've heard of Ken Rockwell I don't think he'd look to fool
> us and I am weighing that against Nikon's stupidity. One of those
> two have to be true. Before I purchase or use the F5 and wait for the
> next prosumer full frame D400, I will look for other comparisons. If
> anyone knows where they might be, I'd appreciate the information.
>
> Actually, maybe it's not the full frame at all but rather Canon's
> sharper focusing mechanisms, if that is the case.

Canon's what??! ha ha hah aha aha !
From: RichA on
On Dec 1, 4:32 pm, "Sosumi" <sos...(a)home.nl> wrote:
> "Alan Calan" <alanca...(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

As long as Canon can "buy" markets, their share is likely secure, even
with second-tier equipment.