Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (
More info?)
"Roxy d'Urban" <not@home.com> wrote in message
news
an.2005.06.09.13.30.00.782000@home.com...
> On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 05:18:07 -0700, Skip M wrote:
>
>> They have more compatible lenses currently in production, which could be
>> of use to a new user. You have to go back nearly 20 years to find lenses
>> that are not compatible with current Canon cameras and current lenses are
>> compatible with bodies built since the late '80s. Nikon "G" lenses
>> aren't
>> compatible with older Nikon AF bodies, and neither are the VR lenses
>> (N90s
>> and older). Canon has a deeper assortment of IS lenses than Nikon, too.
>> What is it that Nikon offers that Canon doesn't? (Sincere question, I'm
>> not just being argumentative.)
>
> That's not really relevant since I could name hundreds of Nikkors made
> since 1959 that will work, one way or another, on a Nikon DSLR. So Canon
> has no advantage in terms of lens availability over Nikon.
Those lenses aren't current production, either. It still stands that
current "G" Nikkors aren't fully compatible with older AF bodies. Canon's
EF-S lenses aren't, either, with their older AF bodies.
>
> What Nikon offers is a much wider system. I believe in all honesty that
> you have to spend more to get the same if you go with Canon as a system.
> This is purely based on the fact that good EF lenses are in short supply
> on the used market.
How is the current Nikon lineup wider than the current Canon lineup?
>
>> 20D vs D100? 8MP, lower noise at higher ISO, 5fps. Comparing it to the
>> D70 isn't fair, the Nikon is a lower stratum camera.
>
> You know, Skip, this noise issue that Canon users continue to bleat about
> is actually a non-issue for 95% of the photos that get produced by the
> users. I remember how noisy my D60 was at 800. The Nikon D70 is better at
> 1000 than the D60 was at 800, but obviously there have been improvements
> made by Canon since then. That the 20D has an extra 2MP is not an issue in
> my life. I really doubt that most photographers who make prints from their
> digital files will ever really need more than 6MP. I am looking at glossy
> A4 sized prints on my desk right now that were made with both the D60 and
> the D70. There is no discernable difference in quality between the shots
> and I have yet to print larger than A4.
Comparing a 2 generation old Canon isn't very relevant, either. You asked
what they offer that Nikon didn't, not what impact it may have on your
photography...
>
> What irks me is when morons like Alan Browne and Stephen Scharf go around
> telling people that Canon is a superior system when there is no evidence
> to suggest that such a situation exists at all.
>
>> True, EF-S isn't pro spec, though owners of the 10-22 may disagree, but,
>> besides the 12-24 Nikkor, what is missing in the equivalent Canon lens
>> line? I'll concede that Nikon's flash system is better, always has been,
>> but Canon's flash system is backwards compatible throughout the line,
>> too.
>> Older flashes don't work on newer bodies, but new flashes work on the
>> older ones...
>
> Remember that EF-S lenses won't work on older Canon DSLR's. The 12-24mm DX
> Nikkor even works on film SLR's from 18mm up.
>
>>> So considering the above, what exactly *is* it that gives Canon the best
>>> lineup available for DSLR?
>> Higher resolution bodies, deeper lens line, more IS lenses, perspective
>> control lenses, better PR department... That being said, I think the D2X
>> is a brilliant example of thinking outside the box, dual resolution
>> depending on intended use.
>
> I don't believe that the Canon lens line-up is offering any real
> advantage over the Nikkor one. They might have more IS than there are VR
> lenses, but that is not really a good enough reason to say they are
> outright better than Nikon.
>
> BTW, Canon don't have a DC lens do they?
What's a "DC" lens? I'm not familiar with the term.
--
Skip Middleton
http
/www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Facebook
Twitter