On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 17:06:59 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

Ken Rockwell touts it, but he shoots from moving cars at 1/125.
And he crops to examine quality closely.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/image-stabilization.htm

Just a a piece of advice - don't take Ken Rockwell seriously about
anything.

On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 10:08:31 -0700, jps wrote:


Shutter, apeture priority, full auto or fully manual. I use my D200
in all sorts of situations. Travel, sports, nature. Stunning detail.
The sensors and electronics on the Nikons are geared towards skin
tones, Canons sensors and electronics are more neutral. I've always
liked the look of a Sony picture, similar to Nikon sensors.

You make some good points, but I would disagree that it's all about
sensors. Up until recently, Nikon and Canon used the same CMOS sensor
array for a long time when Nikon came up with a different sensor
matched to their lenses - LBCAST I think it's called or something like
that. It's a hybrid CCD/CMOS array, but I could be wrong about that.
Lenses are the most important part of any SLR system and all the
majors make great lenses.

I still prefer the 4/3rds format - I get great performance in a
smaller size, the lenses (in particular the new SWD series which is
really sharp) are excellant. I have pudgy fingers to and I don't have
a problem controlling any of my Oly DSLRs.

Like I said, the one problem with the 4/3rds format is that you really
have to know how to deal with the low light issue. The E-3 is a dream
in that sense - I've gotten some spectacular low light results from
the E-3 and 50mm SWD lens.

On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 17:06:59 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 17:15:21 -0400, John H Rant
wrote:



I just took my 18-200 VR back for the second time to get the
auto-focus fixed. Lucky the warranty is for five years, but I'm
wishing I'd not spent the money for that lens.

Didn't get too far into it, but VR seems an unnecessary complication
unless you're printing posters or into forensic photography.
Ken Rockwell touts it, but he shoots from moving cars at 1/125.
And he crops to examine quality closely.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/image-stabilization.htm

Check out the cropping of the cushion with VR and non-VR.
No doubt the VR is much sharper.
But I would never do that cropping, or print posters, so I don't know
if it's worth the complications.
Seems too much can go wrong in a VR lens.
Besides, I still have my good tripod.

--Vic

I shoot my kids playing sports so it comes in real handy, especially
I've got the 70-300 racked to 300 and trying to catch a kid running
full speed.

Also helps in low light conditions.

My hands aren't as steady as they once were...

On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 19:18:40 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 10:08:31 -0700, jps wrote:


Shutter, apeture priority, full auto or fully manual. I use my D200
in all sorts of situations. Travel, sports, nature. Stunning detail.
The sensors and electronics on the Nikons are geared towards skin
tones, Canons sensors and electronics are more neutral. I've always
liked the look of a Sony picture, similar to Nikon sensors.

You make some good points, but I would disagree that it's all about
sensors. Up until recently, Nikon and Canon used the same CMOS sensor
array for a long time when Nikon came up with a different sensor
matched to their lenses - LBCAST I think it's called or something like
that. It's a hybrid CCD/CMOS array, but I could be wrong about that.
Lenses are the most important part of any SLR system and all the
majors make great lenses.

I still prefer the 4/3rds format - I get great performance in a
smaller size, the lenses (in particular the new SWD series which is
really sharp) are excellant. I have pudgy fingers to and I don't have
a problem controlling any of my Oly DSLRs.

Like I said, the one problem with the 4/3rds format is that you really
have to know how to deal with the low light issue. The E-3 is a dream
in that sense - I've gotten some spectacular low light results from
the E-3 and 50mm SWD lens.

Your E-3 takes in about 75% of the information that a good Nikon
body/lens will deliver at the same resolution. I've witnessed it
personally.

I said "sensors and electronics" since it's what happens as the image
is processed to a file that also counts.

I find Nikon's processing to be more my cup of tea than Canon's.

Canon does better on the low light front.

Ken Rockwell has a well-earned opinion but he's not the holy grail. I
find him to be reasonably on the mark but there are plenty of other
opinions to consider before chosing equipment.

On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 17:21:46 -0700, jps wrote:

On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 19:18:40 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 10:08:31 -0700, jps wrote:


Shutter, apeture priority, full auto or fully manual. I use my D200
in all sorts of situations. Travel, sports, nature. Stunning detail.
The sensors and electronics on the Nikons are geared towards skin
tones, Canons sensors and electronics are more neutral. I've always
liked the look of a Sony picture, similar to Nikon sensors.

You make some good points, but I would disagree that it's all about
sensors. Up until recently, Nikon and Canon used the same CMOS sensor
array for a long time when Nikon came up with a different sensor
matched to their lenses - LBCAST I think it's called or something like
that. It's a hybrid CCD/CMOS array, but I could be wrong about that.
Lenses are the most important part of any SLR system and all the
majors make great lenses.

I still prefer the 4/3rds format - I get great performance in a
smaller size, the lenses (in particular the new SWD series which is
really sharp) are excellant. I have pudgy fingers to and I don't have
a problem controlling any of my Oly DSLRs.

Like I said, the one problem with the 4/3rds format is that you really
have to know how to deal with the low light issue. The E-3 is a dream
in that sense - I've gotten some spectacular low light results from
the E-3 and 50mm SWD lens.

Your E-3 takes in about 75% of the information that a good Nikon
body/lens will deliver at the same resolution. I've witnessed it
personally.

Nah. Sorry - nice try.

I've seen the blind tests done in Australia and in Eurpope - Nikon,
Canon and Olympus - in almost all cases, the obvious Nikon bias came
through for both Canon and Olympus - it was embarrassing. The most
interesting item was in the macro area - Nikons were credited almost
70% wrong against Oly.

I said "sensors and electronics" since it's what happens as the image
is processed to a file that also counts.

More BS.

I find Nikon's processing to be more my cup of tea than Canon's.

Canon does better on the low light front.

On that we can agree.
\
Ken Rockwell has a well-earned opinion but he's not the holy grail. I
find him to be reasonably on the mark but there are plenty of other
opinions to consider before chosing equipment.

Well, we'll agree to disagree on that one. A lot of pros I know can't
stand him and/or his opinions - one of which is that Ken Rockwell is
the be all and end all of photography.

On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 17:21:46 -0700, jps wrote:



Ken Rockwell has a well-earned opinion but he's not the holy grail. I
find him to be reasonably on the mark but there are plenty of other
opinions to consider before chosing equipment.

Rockwell is entertaining and throws a lot at you in good fashion.
Did surprise me a bit how hard he pushed the D40 then in another piece
knocked the metering.
But I think he had the gist of what he was saying right.
His enthusiasm spills over, and he doesn't seem to pose with airs of
tech expertise about him. Comes out naturally though, and there's no
doubt about his tech expertise.
I liked his section on cheap/frugal. Aligns well with my own
philosophy, except he's one new car ahead of me.
But as you said, there's other opinions to look at before laying down
the cash.

--Vic

On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 21:18:57 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 17:21:46 -0700, jps wrote:

On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 19:18:40 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 10:08:31 -0700, jps wrote:


Shutter, apeture priority, full auto or fully manual. I use my D200
in all sorts of situations. Travel, sports, nature. Stunning detail.
The sensors and electronics on the Nikons are geared towards skin
tones, Canons sensors and electronics are more neutral. I've always
liked the look of a Sony picture, similar to Nikon sensors.

You make some good points, but I would disagree that it's all about
sensors. Up until recently, Nikon and Canon used the same CMOS sensor
array for a long time when Nikon came up with a different sensor
matched to their lenses - LBCAST I think it's called or something like
that. It's a hybrid CCD/CMOS array, but I could be wrong about that.
Lenses are the most important part of any SLR system and all the
majors make great lenses.

I still prefer the 4/3rds format - I get great performance in a
smaller size, the lenses (in particular the new SWD series which is
really sharp) are excellant. I have pudgy fingers to and I don't have
a problem controlling any of my Oly DSLRs.

Like I said, the one problem with the 4/3rds format is that you really
have to know how to deal with the low light issue. The E-3 is a dream
in that sense - I've gotten some spectacular low light results from
the E-3 and 50mm SWD lens.

Your E-3 takes in about 75% of the information that a good Nikon
body/lens will deliver at the same resolution. I've witnessed it
personally.

Nah. Sorry - nice try.

No, really.

I've seen the blind tests done in Australia and in Eurpope - Nikon,
Canon and Olympus - in almost all cases, the obvious Nikon bias came
through for both Canon and Olympus - it was embarrassing. The most
interesting item was in the macro area - Nikons were credited almost
70% wrong against Oly.

Macro? Is that where you spend most of your time? Bugs?

I said "sensors and electronics" since it's what happens as the image
is processed to a file that also counts.

More BS.

Do some reading professor.

I find Nikon's processing to be more my cup of tea than Canon's.

Canon does better on the low light front.

On that we can agree.

Oh golly. That information came from the same sources as the rest of
my information. Just because you're emotionally attached to your
stinky little E-3 doesn't make a good setup. It's information
collection with a prime lens was inferior to my old D70s with a crappy
28-200mm zoom. Resolution didn't matter, there was simply 25% less
information captured. Your mileage may vary but you've got no basis
to refute, unless you can cite something.

Olympus glass may be wonderful, the E-3 sensor and electronics suck.

Ken Rockwell has a well-earned opinion but he's not the holy grail. I
find him to be reasonably on the mark but there are plenty of other
opinions to consider before chosing equipment.

Well, we'll agree to disagree on that one. A lot of pros I know can't
stand him and/or his opinions - one of which is that Ken Rockwell is
the be all and end all of photography.

"A lot of pros" as if you share any ability to capture images or frame
shots or manipulate exposure on the level of a pro.

I've seen your photography.

On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 19:51:23 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 17:21:46 -0700, jps wrote:



Ken Rockwell has a well-earned opinion but he's not the holy grail. I
find him to be reasonably on the mark but there are plenty of other
opinions to consider before chosing equipment.

Rockwell is entertaining and throws a lot at you in good fashion.
Did surprise me a bit how hard he pushed the D40 then in another piece
knocked the metering.
But I think he had the gist of what he was saying right.
His enthusiasm spills over, and he doesn't seem to pose with airs of
tech expertise about him. Comes out naturally though, and there's no
doubt about his tech expertise.
I liked his section on cheap/frugal. Aligns well with my own
philosophy, except he's one new car ahead of me.
But as you said, there's other opinions to look at before laying down
the cash.

--Vic

The D40 is a cheap camera with a crappy lens. You'd be disappointed.

Rockwell a good source of info for the non-professional who wants to
know about consumer to prosumer equipment.

To wade through the information available on features, sensors,
electronics, lens distortion is better suited to the guy who's
spending $5 - $20K on a setup that's going to be used for commercial
photography or high-level hobby.

I think your experience with an SLR will lead you back to that form
factor. Those of us who grew up with a well-built SLR body cannot
abide the cheap, automatic, inferior quality of the point and shoot,
even the high end models.

Even Tom's crappy E-3 would be a brilliant purchase in comparison to a
fixed-lens wanna be SLR.