From: Frank Arthur on 3 Dec 2007 08:12
If you believe that a Nikon D200 produces out of focus images then you
are just stupid or gullible.
"Alan Calan" <alancalan(a)excite.com> wrote in message
>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
> 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
> they are literally not shaply focused at
> 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
> 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:
>>> Back here on earth, you're right about the porsche but the F5 was
>>> Porsche and so was the Tokina lens before it dropped.
>>> I do have an investment in Nikon, however, in a perfect world and
>>> little abbracadabbra, I'd make that all Canon, if I were to make
>>> change. That's not so far from reality because of Ebay. I can
>>> Nikon and buy used Canon. The fact that I lose on depreciation
>>> lack of marketability works for the purchase as well as the sale.
>>> 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
>>> upscale portraits for Playboy ( I think he shot the interviewees
>>> rather than the Playmates but did John and Yoko and many others)
>>> of late uses a Canon Elph that is very low mps. He said today
>>> all Photoshop for him. I don't have his eye or his creativity but
>>> have done image manipulation with Paint Shop Pro. I do plan to
>>> some of the Lark Books and get comfortable with Photoshop.
>>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
>>due to the larger sensor but other things. Of course, if you prefer
>>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: Wolfgang Weisselberg on 3 Dec 2007 11:35
Alan Calan <alancalan(a)excite.com> wrote:
> 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.
> 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 basically some lenses and an old flash are all that tie you
to Nikon. In other words, you are free to choose Canon, Nikon,
Pentax, Sony, etc.
Any and all dSLR will create very good images. The differences
between them in image quality (maybe excluding Sigma's Foveon
sensor cameras) is mostly in the very high ISO settings (ISO 800,
1600, 3200 ...) and even the worst ones are much better than high
So basically the question boils down to:
- what feels good in your hands (I, for example, need a battery
grip for my big hands for comfortable shooting)
- Which setup of buttons and menues are best for you?
- Do you want a second control wheel (I wouldn't dream of buying
a camera without one, now that I have experienced one with
- do you want/need an LCD like every analog camera used to have,
or is it OK to use the main monitor to see/change settings?
(Since I often shoot in very dark circumstances, the LCD with
it's gentle orange backlight is much more appealing and eats
less battery power, too)
Decide along these and similar lines.
Then go out and buy the *very* *best* *lenses* you can possibly
afford. Rob a bank, aeh, I mean, wait longer and buy only a
fast (and a steal for the price) 50mm fixed focal length lens,
if that's all you can afford.
As you can see by looking at the reviews at http://photozone.de,
lenses deliver less resolution than the sensors can resolve,
except for the center at usually f/4-f/8. No matter how good
the camera, your lens makes the image!
Do not buy cheap, cheap lenses degrade your expensive dSLR to a
4MPix or less camera.
> saw that the Cannon 5D totally blows away all of the Nikons, except
The 5D shows up problems even in very expensive and good lenses,
since it records the borders as well. On the other hand, the 5D
has less center resolution than most crop cameras (due to larger
pixel size and huge sensor size), so lenses that are not perfect
in the center may actually perform better on the 5D.
From: Alan on 3 Dec 2007 17:18
On Mon, 03 Dec 2007 00:54:59 -0800, SMS ???� ?
>It's not a question of being smart or stupid. Nikon lags Canon in sensor
>development, and Canon certainly isn't going to sell sensors to Nikon.
Well, if there is that much of a difference is it not stupid to have a
new D300 not being full frame when Nikon's major competitor has a
camera only a few hundred dollars more that is full frame?
>Canon has better auto-focus, but I doubt if that's the reason for any
>difference you perceive.
Aren't we somewhat dependent on how well and how fast a camera
focuses? Unless we do it ourselves, whatever the camera does is what
we get. In the pictures of the bears, where the "hairs" in the 5D
pictures were in better focus, or maybe it was the extra megapixels)
There was a comparison picture shooting up into a tree. Ken says the
original picture was 44 inches. So was the piece he showed, just a
tiny piece of a large picture or was that the entire picture shrunk
down? As you can see I am very confused especially after Ken
recommends the D200 over the 5D unless you need very large pictures or
extreme wide angle lenses or you always use a tripod.
>You really want to compare the Nikon D3 the Canon 5D in terms of picture
>quality, though the D3 is a better built body.
The Nikon D3 is $5,000. How can you compare that to a $2,200 camera?
>It's rather amusing that even the D3 didn't quite make it to "full
>frame." Because of the limitations of Nikon's F mount, and the need for
>the pixels of a sensor to have light strike them perpendicularly, they
>could not quite get to 36mm x 24mm.
>Some have criticized that if you use DX lenses with the D3 you are
>reduced to 5 megapixels. But with Canon, you can't use the EF-s lenses
>at all on the 5D (or any other full-frame Canon model), even at reduced
Actually, this is important to me because I have an F5. What happens
to DX lenses on the F5?. Between new DX lenses not being great on the
F5, not being able to use the SB28 with the D200 or D300 and all my
lenses are AF not AF-S, am I gaining that much by staying with Nikon
or could I sell everything on Ebay and get used Canon compatilbe
accessories, if there are any for the 5D.
>In any case, I would not base a decision on anything Rockwell has said,
>or that he shows on his site. If you really want full-frame, get the 5D.
>Otherwise you'll be happy with the D300.
I get the feeling that Rockwell is doing the right thing but not
explaining it well enough for us not so expereinced.
From: nospam on 3 Dec 2007 18:25
In article <2mt8l35ch926gkqahieffm56k4i61qk073(a)4ax.com>, Alan
> >It's not a question of being smart or stupid. Nikon lags Canon in sensor
> >development, and Canon certainly isn't going to sell sensors to Nikon.
> Well, if there is that much of a difference is it not stupid to have a
> new D300 not being full frame when Nikon's major competitor has a
> camera only a few hundred dollars more that is full frame?
the d300 competes with the 40d. it's a little more expensive, but it
also does a lot more, including 8fps and live view *with* autofocus.
the 5d is over two years old and will probably be replaced some time
next year but that's just rumour at this point.
> >You really want to compare the Nikon D3 the Canon 5D in terms of picture
> >quality, though the D3 is a better built body.
> The Nikon D3 is $5,000. How can you compare that to a $2,200 camera?
because if he made the appropriate comparison, he couldn't claim canon
was perfect like he always does. the full frame d3 is up against the
1.3x crop 1d mark iii.
the reality is, both nikon and canon make excellent cameras and lenses.
> >Some have criticized that if you use DX lenses with the D3 you are
> >reduced to 5 megapixels. But with Canon, you can't use the EF-s lenses
> >at all on the 5D (or any other full-frame Canon model), even at reduced
> Actually, this is important to me because I have an F5. What happens
> to DX lenses on the F5?.
they vignette, except some dx lenses *will* cover the full area at some
focal lengths. the d3 can switch into cropped dx mode, but since
there's 12 megapixels for the entire frame, only 5 will be used in crop
mode. still, the result is going to be very good, and much better than
say a 6 megapixel d40, d50 or d70.
of course, there's no requirement that you buy dx lenses; almost every
nikon lens made in the last 30 years will work.
> Between new DX lenses not being great on the
> F5, not being able to use the SB28 with the D200 or D300
sb-28 will work in auto mode with its built-in sensor. what it won't
do is ttl with a digital slr, and those use a pre-flash that some
people don't like, so you might even prefer using the sb-28.
> and all my
> lenses are AF not AF-S,
they'll work fine on any nikon camera including the d300 and d3. only
with the d40/d40x will they not autofocus, although metering will still
> am I gaining that much by staying with Nikon
> or could I sell everything on Ebay and get used Canon compatilbe
> accessories, if there are any for the 5D.
if you feel the 5d better fits your needs, you might consider
switching, but so far, i don't see a compelling reason. you already
own nikon lenses and a flash that will work.
> I get the feeling that Rockwell is doing the right thing but not
> explaining it well enough for us not so expereinced.
While occasionally inspired by actual products or experiences, this
site is entirely a work of fiction. It's a joke! Any resemblance to
any actual people, places, products or anything is purely coincidental.
I only update things as I discover errors. I offer no warrantees of
any kind, except that there are many deliberate gaffes, practical
jokes and downright foolish and made-up things lurking.
keep that in mind as you read his pages. or, try reading someone more
credible, such as thom hogan:
From: frederick on 3 Dec 2007 18:44
> they vignette, except some dx lenses *will* cover the full area at some
> focal lengths. the d3 can switch into cropped dx mode, but since
> there's 12 megapixels for the entire frame, only 5 will be used in crop
> mode. still, the result is going to be very good, and much better than
> say a 6 megapixel d40, d50 or d70.
Really? How do you work that one out?
With similar pixel density, I have little doubt that in crop mode, the
result will be very similar to 6mp APS-c sesnor dslrs.