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.