Rockwell Nikon D200, 300 vs Cannon 5D
in [SLR Cameras]
|
From: Alan Calan on 1 Dec 2007 13:02 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
From: Robert Brace on 1 Dec 2007 13:47 "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 > One paramount fact you must remember is that in any comparative testing you find on Rockwell's site, you need to absolutely verify the comparisons have been carried out apples-to-apples. Hardly ever the case from Ken's site. Don't, under any circumstances, buy based only on his presentations. Look for other confirmations and try the products yourself before jumping in with both feet. The fact that you ask the question about lens quality influences, confirms that you need to seek out other sources of comparisons. Bob
From: Frank Arthur on 1 Dec 2007 14:08 "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 1 Dec 2007 14:15 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. But that too could be a reason to choose Canon, something I never thought I'd do. I live not too far from Nikon USA in Melville and I will be going to the building across the parking lot from it this week, I wonder if they have any information that might be helpful. Alan On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 18:47:33 GMT, "Robert Brace" <rlbrace(a)shaw.ca> 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 >> > >One paramount fact you must remember is that in any comparative testing you >find on Rockwell's site, you need to absolutely verify the comparisons have >been carried out apples-to-apples. Hardly ever the case from Ken's site. >Don't, under any circumstances, buy based only on his presentations. Look >for other confirmations and try the products yourself before jumping in with >both feet. >The fact that you ask the question about lens quality influences, confirms >that you need to seek out other sources of comparisons. >Bob >
From: HankB on 1 Dec 2007 16:06
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 |