More lessons for Ozzy
 

1) Choose a DSLR with the least in camera processing next time...Nikon.
2) Choose a DSLR with the best ergonomics next time....Nikon.
3) There are Nikon to Canon lens adapters because Nikon glass is
better.
4) There are no Canon to Nikon lens adapters because Canon has yet to
catch up on optics.
5) Both Ziess and Fuji are using Nikon mounts for body and lenses.
Guess why.
6) When Nikon releases a new camera it's generally new from the ground
up, while Canon often redresses old bodies, ie: The "new" 30D has upset
a lot of Canon users. Compare to Nikon who released a utterly new body
in the D50 and an updated D70 in the D70s.
7) Nikon gear holds value better on used market by nearly 20%.
8) Canon has now lenses to match the amazing 70-200VR and new 18-200VR
9) Nikon's VR system is measured to be 30% more effective than Canon's
system
10) Canon has no camera under 1000.00 that can match a D50 or D70
11) Canon has no camera under 2000.00 that can match a new D200.
12) Nikon metering system makes even Canon lovers jealous.
13) Nikon wireless flash system is standard. You pay extra on Canon
bodies and it's still poor.
14) Finally, you pick a camera based on the lens system. Bodies come
and go. Canon is good. Nikon is superb. Almost all Pulitzer photo
winners were shot with Nikon gear.

Canon advantages: Better for pro sports shooters due to faster
turn-around time on repairs and easier to get ahold of gear. Being a
much smaller company, Nikon is slower with repairs and is typcially
sold out. Some people have been waiting since December for their
18-200VR lenses! Of course canon has nothing even remotely as good at
any price.


RB
35s5
NY

More lessons for Ozzy
 

With the advent of digital cameras, the body and electronics have
become a LOT
more important. The body is no longer just a film carrier. The best
lenses in
the world won't do much if the electronics are deficient.


Every DSLR on the market takes great pics without exception. They are
so close in quality that on an 8X10 print it's very hard to tell them
apart. D2X, D50 and Canon 30D pics can be curved so that they look just
about identical. It's the lenses, ergonomics and camera speed that are
the big difference. Still, for pixel peepers, the Nikon's tend to edge
out the canon gear.

RB
35s5
NY

More lessons for Ozzy
 

"Capt. Rob" wrote in message
oups.com...
With the advent of digital cameras, the body and electronics have
become a LOT
more important. The body is no longer just a film carrier. The best
lenses in
the world won't do much if the electronics are deficient.


Every DSLR on the market takes great pics without exception. They are
so close in quality that on an 8X10 print it's very hard to tell them
apart. D2X, D50 and Canon 30D pics can be curved so that they look just
about identical. It's the lenses, ergonomics and camera speed that are
the big difference. Still, for pixel peepers, the Nikon's tend to edge
out the canon gear.

I don't think that was the point BB was tying to make..... wrong as it may
be.
Although I agree that the lens is by far the most important component....
the bodies on the SLRs were as important. In consideration features like...
having titanium shutters allowed the F4 a 1/8000 shutter speed. The multi
function data back allowed for imprinting shot data between the shots on the
negative. Never mind the metering, AE and flash adapter capabilities. A
solid high quality camera body certainly carries weight. My Nikon F4 still
ranks as one of the best and most rugged SLR camera bodies ever produced.

Take into consideration that discussing cameras & photography with BB... is
like talking guns with Ganz.

CM

More lessons for Ozzy
 

DSLR bodies are VERY close in image quality and color. Shot side by
side all of the Nikon bodies shoot images that look quite alike when
printed side by side from NEF files. My D200 files are VERY close to
the D70 images. My friend's 30D shots are also about the same. I have a
friend with a Fuji DSLR (S3) and we agree that it's about the same
image quality as any of the other DSLRs. When pushed to low light
limits you'll find bigger differences in the sensor's capability. Under
most shooting situations they are so close that it's a stretch to
compare DSLR bodies to film. Most professional tests really go crazy
with 100% crops to see ANY difference that matters.
Choose a DSLR based on the lenses and ergonomics/performance. Ozzy's
lenses are fairly poor, but Canon does make some good glass. There is
also some 3rd party glass, such as the Tokina 12-24mm that beats all
others.

RB
35s5
NY

More lessons for Ozzy
 

My Canon was sold with a lens so bad that I just left it with the
shop
and picked two of their better lenses, the 70-200mm F4 L-series is not
bad at all.
The 2.8 was just not necessary.


The 70-200 F4 is a consumer grade lens, soft at F4 and much like
Nikon's 70-300, which is also a weak lens. Saying that the 2.8 wasn't
necessary points out that you don't even know the difference between
2.8 and F4 in real world shooting.

RB
35s5
NY

More lessons for Ozzy
 

Thank you....have you seen any test shots with my lens?
Do you know what my use of the lens is?

And yes, the 2.8 was well beyond my requirements.


Yes, Ozzy, I've seen shots with that lens and the 2.8. Again, I doubt
you know what the 2.8 does better, but why don't you tell us?

RB
35s5
NY

More lessons for Ozzy
 

What I'm saying that Robert doesn't seem to understand is
that in a digital camera. the electronics make a big difference as
well, just as
choice of film would be important in a film camera. They are not all
the same,
although they might all be good.


Having used and printed from many DSLRs, I can tell you that they are
VERY close. You would have a VERY tough time telling a D50 shot from a
D2X or 20D. In fact, visit some forums and you'll see people posting
comparisons and it's pretty tough to tell them apart. It's NOTHING at
all like film, which even varied batch to batch. Even today on motion
pictures negative is bought by batch so it matches. This is just not
the case is any respect with DSLRs.

RB
35s5
NY

More lessons for Ozzy
 

Sure you have Bubbles, sure you have!


I guess you can't tell us what the 2.8 does better. You've been
exposed, Ozzy...out of focus as usual. I'll ask yet again, what the
does the 2.8 do better?

RB
35s5
NY

More lessons for Ozzy
 

I didn't need the depth of field nor the speed of the 2.8 especially
at the much higher cost.



Just as I thought...you don't have a good grasp of lens properties. I'm
NOT trolling here or trying to win an arguement (for once!). The only
reason not to buy the 2.8 is if you can't afford it...and that's a fine
excuse that I have NO problem with. Not everyone is prepared to spend
big on good glass.....
So here are the MANY reasons why that 2.8 is worth the money...

1) Bokeh....the quality of out of focus elements in the for and
background. This is often considered one of the most important elements
of a good photo.

Here is a shot showing good bokeh...courtesy of my 1700 dollar 70-200VR
lens...
http://members.aol.com/bobsprit/images/asianaw.jpg

2) Sharpness....All optics sharpen up around F8, but the Canon 2.8 is
nearly tack sharp wide open! You can have your cake and eat it too with
this lens. Your F4 is not terribly good until you get past 5.6.

3) Action....ever shoot moving objects? F-2.8 also allows for faster
shutter speeds in ALL conditions

4) DOF....well, anyone who says this is not a key element of
photography is really full of it. Fast glass means more control over
COA (center of attention) in your shots.

5) Build....the 2.8 is built better, and has better resale value. It's
"worth" buying if you can afford it. Otherwise anything less is just
cheating yourself.

6) You do realize that the 70-200 2.8 is an IS lens? This means sharper
shots at slower shutter speeds with less light (2-3 stops!)! While not
quite as good as my 70-200VR it's still an amazing hunk of glass. Get a
good deal on one and you can ebay it for just about what you paid.

Ozzy, you have a good camera, with so-so lenses. If you owned that 2.8
you'd quickly learn that the F4 was a waste of money. Do you own any
fast glass?


RB
35s5
NY

More lessons for Ozzy
 

I don't need the 2.8 tele!
The F4 is well good enough for my purposes.



Right, you don't need better bokeh, DOF, sharpness, faster shutter
speeds, more value for the dollar, better build, image
stability.....nah, who needs that stuff!!?? BTW, fixed length lenses
are called PRIMES, Ozzy!

Bwahahahahaaha! Ozzy, you are quite the photographer! Gotta love folks
who buy a DSLR and fancy themselves competent. Now I wonder who told
you to buy the primes AND a cheap zoom!?


RB
35s5
NY