From: Alan Calan on
Achilleas

Back here on earth, you're right about the porsche but the F5 was a
Porsche and so was the Tokina lens before it dropped.

I do have an investment in Nikon, however, in a perfect world and a
little abbracadabbra, I'd make that all Canon, if I were to make the
change. That's not so far from reality because of Ebay. I can sell
Nikon and buy used Canon. The fact that I lose on depreciation and
lack of marketability works for the purchase as well as the sale. Even
my SB-28 needs to be replaced by an SB-800 if I go with a D200.

As far as jpegs vs. raw files, I intend to get into Photoshop and
image manipulation. I have a friend who was a pro who did many very
upscale portraits for Playboy ( I think he shot the interviewees
rather than the Playmates but did John and Yoko and many others) who
of late uses a Canon Elph that is very low mps. He said today it's
all Photoshop for him. I don't have his eye or his creativity but I
have done image manipulation with Paint Shop Pro. I do plan to get
some of the Lark Books and get comfortable with Photoshop.


On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 16:33:03 -0800 (PST), acl
<achilleaslazarides(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>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: acl on
On Dec 2, 6:22 pm, Alan Calan <alanca...(a)excite.com> wrote:
> Achilleas
>
> Back here on earth, you're right about the porsche but the F5 was a
> Porsche and so was the Tokina lens before it dropped.
>
> I do have an investment in Nikon, however, in a perfect world and a
> little abbracadabbra, I'd make that all Canon, if I were to make the
> change. That's not so far from reality because of Ebay. I can sell
> Nikon and buy used Canon. The fact that I lose on depreciation and
> lack of marketability works for the purchase as well as the sale. Even
> my SB-28 needs to be replaced by an SB-800 if I go with a D200.
>
> As far as jpegs vs. raw files, I intend to get into Photoshop and
> image manipulation. I have a friend who was a pro who did many very
> upscale portraits for Playboy ( I think he shot the interviewees
> rather than the Playmates but did John and Yoko and many others) who
> of late uses a Canon Elph that is very low mps. He said today it's
> all Photoshop for him. I don't have his eye or his creativity but I
> have done image manipulation with Paint Shop Pro. I do plan to get
> some of the Lark Books and get comfortable with Photoshop.
>

Hi,
Maybe I wasn't too clear. I didn't mean to imply that you shouldn't
get an expensive camera because you're incompetent; sorry if it
appeared that way. What I am saying is that if you decide to get the
5d because you saw some samples and thought that
> > > 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
then, unless we're talking above ISO 1600, the difference there isn't
due to the larger sensor but other things. Of course, if you prefer a
5d then there's not much more to it, get it :). Just be careful what
you believe, a lot of stuff you read on the net is nonsense (then
again, maybe this is also nonsense :) ).
From: Robert Brace on

"Alan Calan" <alancalan(a)excite.com> wrote in message
news:0ef5l3pj3to790qvbdbthv5oddd464v497(a)4ax.com...
> Achilleas
>
> Back here on earth, you're right about the porsche but the F5 was a
> Porsche and so was the Tokina lens before it dropped.
>
> I do have an investment in Nikon, however, in a perfect world and a
> little abbracadabbra, I'd make that all Canon, if I were to make the
> change. That's not so far from reality because of Ebay. I can sell
> Nikon and buy used Canon. The fact that I lose on depreciation and
> lack of marketability works for the purchase as well as the sale. Even
> my SB-28 needs to be replaced by an SB-800 if I go with a D200.
>
> As far as jpegs vs. raw files, I intend to get into Photoshop and
> image manipulation. I have a friend who was a pro who did many very
> upscale portraits for Playboy ( I think he shot the interviewees
> rather than the Playmates but did John and Yoko and many others) who
> of late uses a Canon Elph that is very low mps. He said today it's
> all Photoshop for him. I don't have his eye or his creativity but I
> have done image manipulation with Paint Shop Pro. I do plan to get
> some of the Lark Books and get comfortable with Photoshop.
>
Based on your previous answers about your use of the SB28 (you said you
shoot it in A mode) with the F5, you would not need to replace the SB28 if
you go to the D200.
It will operate in A (which is the "Auto" exposure mode with light delivery
measured by the on-flash sensor, not TTL) on the D200 as well as the F5.
I don't know why you'd choose A over the available TTL settings with Matrix
Fill flash, etc. making use of the F5's Matrix meter ability to balance
flash vs. available light, etc. or your ability to override any portion of
it as well.
Get into the SB28 operator's manual (even though it isn't the easiest
reading to plough through) and try the available functions. You will find
there is much more flexibility available than you realize.
Bob


From: Frank Arthur on

"Robert Brace" <rlbrace(a)shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:EhD4j.87145$cD.72588(a)pd7urf2no...
>
> "Alan Calan" <alancalan(a)excite.com> wrote in message
> news:0ef5l3pj3to790qvbdbthv5oddd464v497(a)4ax.com...
>> Achilleas
>>
>> Back here on earth, you're right about the porsche but the F5 was a
>> Porsche and so was the Tokina lens before it dropped.
>>
>> I do have an investment in Nikon, however, in a perfect world and a
>> little abbracadabbra, I'd make that all Canon, if I were to make
>> the
>> change. That's not so far from reality because of Ebay. I can
>> sell
>> Nikon and buy used Canon. The fact that I lose on depreciation and
>> lack of marketability works for the purchase as well as the sale.
>> Even
>> my SB-28 needs to be replaced by an SB-800 if I go with a D200.
>>
>> As far as jpegs vs. raw files, I intend to get into Photoshop and
>> image manipulation. I have a friend who was a pro who did many
>> very
>> upscale portraits for Playboy ( I think he shot the interviewees
>> rather than the Playmates but did John and Yoko and many others)
>> who
>> of late uses a Canon Elph that is very low mps. He said today it's
>> all Photoshop for him. I don't have his eye or his creativity but
>> I
>> have done image manipulation with Paint Shop Pro. I do plan to get
>> some of the Lark Books and get comfortable with Photoshop.
>>
> Based on your previous answers about your use of the SB28 (you said
> you shoot it in A mode) with the F5, you would not need to replace
> the SB28 if you go to the D200.
> It will operate in A (which is the "Auto" exposure mode with light
> delivery measured by the on-flash sensor, not TTL) on the D200 as
> well as the F5.
> I don't know why you'd choose A over the available TTL settings with
> Matrix Fill flash, etc. making use of the F5's Matrix meter ability
> to balance flash vs. available light, etc. or your ability to
> override any portion of it as well.
> Get into the SB28 operator's manual (even though it isn't the
> easiest reading to plough through) and try the available functions.
> You will find there is much more flexibility available than you
> realize.
> Bob
>
C'mon Bob. This guy uses an SB 28 on an F5 with Duracell Rechargeable
Batteries that he says
takes 10 hours to recharge each set for the camera and another 10
hours for the flash unit. And his important images failed because he
didn't know whether the flash west off or not? Something is not right
about that whole story.


From: Alan Calan on
I have no problem being called incompetent but I know that's not what
you meant. I probably should have realized that for the D200 the
"hairs" on the bear should have been in focus and the lines on the
house and tree should have been better focus too.

What I don't know is if the Canon focuses better than the Nikon. I
experienced slow auto focusing in dark situations with the F5 all of
Rockwell's tests involved well lit subjects. I also assumed that all
the cameras were on tripods where IS and VR shouldn't be needed but
maybe I'm wrong.

I don't understand is why the Nikon pixtures are out of focus, I mean
they are literally not shaply focused at
http://kenrockwell.com/tech/full-frame-advantage.htm

The lenses used in the "You can us a cheap lens" test were not IS or
VR lenses. One was a Canon 70-210mm f/4 for the 5D and the Nikkor
85mm f/2 AI-s for the D200

So, I just don't understand why all the Nikon photos look out of focus
or does it just look that way because these are tiny portions of
cropped pictures.

On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 09:14:14 -0800 (PST), acl
<achilleaslazarides(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>On Dec 2, 6:22 pm, Alan Calan <alanca...(a)excite.com> wrote:
>> Achilleas
>>
>> Back here on earth, you're right about the porsche but the F5 was a
>> Porsche and so was the Tokina lens before it dropped.
>>
>> I do have an investment in Nikon, however, in a perfect world and a
>> little abbracadabbra, I'd make that all Canon, if I were to make the
>> change. That's not so far from reality because of Ebay. I can sell
>> Nikon and buy used Canon. The fact that I lose on depreciation and
>> lack of marketability works for the purchase as well as the sale. Even
>> my SB-28 needs to be replaced by an SB-800 if I go with a D200.
>>
>> As far as jpegs vs. raw files, I intend to get into Photoshop and
>> image manipulation. I have a friend who was a pro who did many very
>> upscale portraits for Playboy ( I think he shot the interviewees
>> rather than the Playmates but did John and Yoko and many others) who
>> of late uses a Canon Elph that is very low mps. He said today it's
>> all Photoshop for him. I don't have his eye or his creativity but I
>> have done image manipulation with Paint Shop Pro. I do plan to get
>> some of the Lark Books and get comfortable with Photoshop.
>>
>
>Hi,
>Maybe I wasn't too clear. I didn't mean to imply that you shouldn't
>get an expensive camera because you're incompetent; sorry if it
>appeared that way. What I am saying is that if you decide to get the
>5d because you saw some samples and thought that
>> > > 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
>then, unless we're talking above ISO 1600, the difference there isn't
>due to the larger sensor but other things. Of course, if you prefer a
>5d then there's not much more to it, get it :). Just be careful what
>you believe, a lot of stuff you read on the net is nonsense (then
>again, maybe this is also nonsense :) ).