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

More lessons for Ozzy
 

I've told you again and again that I don't need expensive professional
quality lenses be they tele or fixed.


Why did you get the DSLR? Let me guess...to NOT take advantage of the
better lenses! Good work!

I'll continue to use the same term I've used since my
uncle

Is that the same uncle who used to drive a two wheeled car over to the
eating place for people where he'd order white things that come from
chickens?

Bubbles, you're quite the snob.

Yup, I don't buy junk cameras. If that makes me a snob, then so be it.
Some folks are born with the "Bayliner mentality" and can never shake
it off.


RB
35s5
NY

More lessons for Ozzy
 

Nope, I got it because I wanted a DSLR because of the ease of printing
and editing at home.
I bought the best lenses for my requirements...get it yet?


Uhhhh....please explain why a DSLR makes printing and editing easier at
home....THIS one will be great! Do you mean regular digital cameras
were harder to use at home???

I bought the best lenses for my requirements...get it yet?


Right, you never require low light work, fast moving subjects, good
quality bokeh or sharpness. We get it! You made the right choice!
Ozzy, you have no idea how stupid you sound. Faster glass means getting
shots that your lenses can miss. You act as if a 2.8 lens is a level of
quality you don't need, but it's about GETTING a shot. You clearly
don't get it and were too cheap to buy good glass. Let's just leave it
at that. If you're happy with your consumer crap, why worry so much
about my opinion? I've never seen you soooo defensive. Go take your
nap!

RB
35s5
NY

More lessons for Ozzy
 

Nope, sorry again.
You obviously don't have the ability to settle for a product that does
what you require.
You NEED to be able to say you have the best , Oh and that you bought
it cheaper than anyone else.



Settle? Why should you settle?
When did I say I have the best gear? I don't.
When did I say I got it cheaper? I didn't.

The Ozzy System: When all else fails, make stuff up! Easy there, M.
Brady....we're all very glad you like your gear!


RB
35s5
NY

More lessons for Ozzy
 

Got ya bouncing around like a ball in a pinball machine, and I'm
defensive?


Yup, more so that I've ever seen before from you. Defending cheap
lenses, canon and some sort of photographic need that defies the
principals of optics....it's been fun!
After you were finally forced to lie, I knew it was all over for you!
Go take that nap...you worked hard this morning!

RB
35s5
NY

More lessons for Ozzy
 

"Capt. Rob" wrote in message
oups.com...
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

Is their a Picatinny rail mount system available for that camera?

Amen!

More lessons for Ozzy
 

Is their a Picatinny rail mount system available for that camera?


For which camera? I'm not sure which DSLR's can handle gun-shock
without mods.


RB
35s5
NY

More lessons for Ozzy
 

Hey Guys,

I'm way out of class with this Camera discussion BUT when I switched
from polaroid to Digital I used Nutsy as my expert. He didn't steer me
wrong. He understood my wants & needs and the advice was perfect. I
couldn't be more pleased with my present set-up. I've thanked him for
his help.

A super Photo-Artist he may not be but his knowledge is damn good of the
available equipment. Also, it is given freely.

http://community.webtv.net/tassail/ThomPage

More lessons for Ozzy
 

A super Photo-Artist he may not be but his knowledge is damn good of
the
available equipment. Also, it is given freely.



Give me your budget, skill level and expectations and I'll give you the
2 or 3 best picks for P&S or DSLRs. Ozzy should have asked me.
For his needs:
Nikon D50
Nikkor 18-200VR
50mm 1.8
SB600 Flash
This would have been a nicer outfit. The new Nikkor 18-200VR is simply
amazing glass. For many people it's the ONLY lens they'll ever need.

RB
35s5
NY

More lessons for Ozzy
 

Thom Stewart wrote:


A super Photo-Artist he may not be but his knowledge is damn good of the
available equipment. Also, it is given freely.

True enough Thom, now if he could just deliver it with a little less
vitriol and hyperbole we'd be all set here.

Cheers
Marty

More lessons for Ozzy
 

Bob Crantz wrote:

"Capt. Rob"

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

Is their a Picatinny rail mount system available for that camera?

Why would you want to mount a telescopic sight on a camera?

Amen!

More lessons for Ozzy
 

Marty,

If you need a good answer on something he knows don't go through the
discussion group. On the ASA he feels duty bound to reply with to much
"Bluster" I don't believe anyone, on the List, can change that but on a
one to one e-mail he is different. Don't ask me why???

http://community.webtv.net/tassail/ThomPage

More lessons for Ozzy
 

In article , OzOne wrote:

On 20 Apr 2006 02:44:51 -0700, "Capt. Rob"
scribbled thusly:

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

You don't know what my glass is!

Half full of a quality Aussie red.

PDW

More lessons for Ozzy
 

Heinlein said, "Never argue with an idiot. Onlookers
may not be able to tell you apart.

OzOne wrote in message

"Capt. Rob"
scribbled thusly:

Got ya bouncing around like a ball in a pinball machine, and I'm
defensive?


Yup, more so that I've ever seen before from you. Defending cheap
lenses, canon and some sort of photographic need that defies the
principals of optics....it's been fun!
After you were finally forced to lie, I knew it was all over for you!
Go take that nap...you worked hard this morning!

RB
35s5
NY

Forced to lie...tell me Bubbles, what was my lie?


Oz1...of the 3 twins.

More lessons for Ozzy
 

In article , OzOne wrote:

On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 00:47:19 +0100, Peter Wiley
scribbled thusly:

You don't know what my glass is!

Half full of a quality Aussie red.

PDW
Not this time of the morning!

All right, then, you latte sipping metro.... far more use drinking than
arguing with Bob about cameras. After all, WGAF? I buy cheap(ish)
digital cameras for general use too, because they get dropped in dry
docks, off decks etc etc, and it's not even my money. It's yours :-)

Had a truckload of steel reo delivered at 0730, there goes *my*
weekend. I almost hope it ****es rain & snows, I hate doing steel
fixing. MIG gun with flux cored wire, here we come....

PDW

More lessons for Ozzy
 

Forced to lie...tell me Bubbles, what was my lie?


You said I claimed my gear was best, and I got it for less, but I never
made ANY such claim. After losing every point, all you had left was
dopey fibs.
I expected more of you, Ozzy.

RB
35s5
NY

More lessons for Ozzy
 

Forced to lie...tell me Bubbles, what was my lie?


You said I claimed my gear was best, and I got it for less, but I never
made ANY such claim. After losing every point, all you had left was
dopey fibs.
I expected more of you, Ozzy.

RB
35s5
NY

More lessons for Ozzy
 

OzOne wrote:

On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 02:12:25 +0100, Peter Wiley
scribbled thusly:

All right, then, you latte sipping metro.... far more use drinking than
arguing with Bob about cameras. After all, WGAF? I buy cheap(ish)
digital cameras for general use too, because they get dropped in dry
docks, off decks etc etc, and it's not even my money. It's yours :-)


Heh he, that's why I bought the little cheapy Olympus.

Had a truckload of steel reo delivered at 0730, there goes *my*
weekend. I almost hope it ****es rain & snows, I hate doing steel
fixing. MIG gun with flux cored wire, here we come....

Why not use gas, 25% Co2, 75%Ar?


PDW

Go for it..do it naked and you can get a nice tan too.

Two things you should *not* do naked: 1)Arc weld 2)Fry bacon

Cheers
Marty

Oz1...of the 3 twins.

I welcome you to crackerbox palace,We've been expecting you.

More lessons for Ozzy
 

I'll say it again...I don't need to spend money on cameras for
bragging rights.



Uh, but a D50 costs LESS, dummy! So does the D70s!!!


Bwahahahahahahaha!


RB
35s5
NY

More lessons for Ozzy
 

Oh **** Nutsy,

Most of what I know of Photography I've learned listening to you. Even I
know those poles should be vertical, not slanted. You told Ozzy to level
his Camera. Why in the hell don't you practise what you preach?

http://community.webtv.net/tassail/ThomPage

More lessons for Ozzy
 

Most of what I know of Photography I've learned listening to you. Even
I
know those poles should be vertical, not slanted. You told Ozzy to
level
his Camera. Why in the hell don't you practise what you preach?


Ozzy's shot is a scenic, in spite of what he'd "like" to call it. Even
with a false horizon, you should level off for those. Best example
would be a group of people on the beach with visible ocean and horizon.

But for a shot of a child, the rule is often broken with nice results.
This little girl was repeatedly dangling from the green rail and I
leveled for her and not the playset. This is effective composition. If
she was "swinging" I would have leveled off the playset to build on
that aspect of the scene. Static portrait composition does not always
require leveling off, as in the hard angles I employ shooting down on
Thomas. And sometimes, especially with child portraits, you simply take
what comes and shoot fast, then level it in post.
Subtle errors are often a result of the subject leaning, as seen here.
In spite of framing with grid lines, Thom's movement still threw me off
slightly. It's fixable, but I'm otherwise happy with the shot.

http://members.aol.com/bobsprit/images/firemanweby.jpg

RB
35s5
NY

More lessons for Ozzy
 

Nutsy,

A whole lot of words and I don't think they mean much to anyone (Not
even you) You could have just said; "I FU!" Nutsy, you know you did; In
both pictures! That Shed isn't leaning. You were careless, pure and
simple. All the glass in the world can't excuse that. Say it; "I FU!"
:^)

http://community.webtv.net/tassail/ThomPage