Canon's Big Advantage Over Nikon

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by measekite, Jul 4, 2008.

  1. measekite

    measekite Guest

    It has come to my attention that NIkon has discontinued all (except 1)
    of their medium zoom lenses that are reasonable priced leaving
    themselves with a fine but expensive group of FX lenses plus some of the
    less expensive DX lenses.

    On the other hand Canon has a better line of reasonable price medium
    range zoom EF lenses (not L designatged) that are still available. It
    seems, at leaset on the surface that the Canon lense line is more
    complete with more choices.
     
    measekite, Jul 4, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. measekite

    Vagabond Guest


    Surely someone who has been trolling as long as you have can do better than
    that? Have you ever made so much as one post that wasn't trolling?

    How come you have popped up here? Get too much egg on your face after being
    caught lying a few days ago?

    Tony
     
    Vagabond, Jul 4, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. measekite

    Pete D Guest

    Hardly matters anyway, most buyers of either system will only ever buy one
    or two lenses and there is plenty of range for them, only the top tier of
    buyers want or indeed need more. In fact this is true of all the D-SLR
    manufacturers except maybe Sigma.
     
    Pete D, Jul 4, 2008
    #3
  4. measekite

    measekite Guest

    Correct but I believe this is expensive like the Canon L series. Read
    www.kenrockwell.com

    That is where I read about this.
    In some cases but not in other cases. Many times the standard lenses
    are sharper and produce better results. The L series lense have
    superior build and are usually faster. Slower lenses are cheaper to
    produce and are many times sharper.
     
    measekite, Jul 4, 2008
    #4
  5. Actually there is. Because of the smaller image circle the lens is
    easier to design and manufacture, can be smaller and lighter (more
    convenient to carry), and can be cheaper without compromising the image
    quality within the DX image circle.

    jue
     
    Jürgen Exner, Jul 4, 2008
    #5
  6. measekite

    Guest Guest

    actually there isn't.
    that's true for wide angle lenses. for telephoto, the difference is
    very minor, if at all.
     
    Guest, Jul 4, 2008
    #6
  7. measekite

    Guest Guest

    typical consumers *do* buy third party lenses because they're cheaper
    and are 'good enough.' it's the pros that tend to avoid them.

    and compatibility problems with canon is mainly with sigma lenses. for
    whatever reason, sigma manages to get it right on nikon, pentax and
    sony, and other third party lens makers don't seem to have any problems
    with canon or the others.
     
    Guest, Jul 4, 2008
    #7
  8. measekite

    IV lll. Guest

    read Ken Rockwell ? You are kidding right ?
     
    IV lll., Jul 4, 2008
    #8
  9. measekite

    John Turco Guest


    Hello, David:

    Congratulations! I'm so proud of you! You've finally seen the light, and
    are now suggesting "lowly" Pentax, as a feasible alternative to the awesome,
    earth-shattering power of Canon and Nikon -- whose DSLR bodies and lenses
    cannot possibly be equaled, by any intelligent lifeforms in the entire
    galaxy. <g>

    All kidding aside, I'm sure you understand that if Pentax ever goes the
    way of Konica-Minolta, such a sad event would hardly benefit the consuming
    public. The more competition there is, the better the hardware which will
    result, and the lower its price shall fall.


    Cordially,
    John Turco <>
     
    John Turco, Jul 11, 2008
    #9
  10. measekite

    ASAAR Guest

    Don't be so hard on Canon. They have a real dilemma. Should
    their lenses communicate with their cameras or with their bodies?
     
    ASAAR, Jul 11, 2008
    #10
  11. measekite

    ASAAR Guest

    see "and communication between camera and body." above. :)

    There probably is room for additional contacts, but only one extra
    contact would be sufficient if it is implemented as a high speed
    serial channel, passing data and commands. Somewhat like a MIDI
    port but running thousands of times faster. Or even faster if
    instead of electrical it's optical. Sony has lots of experience
    here, having sold efficient, portable CD and MD players for many
    years that had optical ports, so if any company adds this to their
    cameras, I'd guess that Sony would offer it first.
     
    ASAAR, Jul 15, 2008
    #11
  12. measekite

    Guest Guest

    we've been through this before. the limitations are very minor, fast
    glass doesn't sell well enough to bother making, nikon now has new
    telephotos to compete with canon (where canon has traditionally been
    strong) and nikon's mount is fine as it is.

    canon's breech mount needed to be revamped (they tried adapting it but
    it was a mess).
    more out of 'had to.' nikon doesn't have to so they didn't.
     
    Guest, Jul 18, 2008
    #12
  13. measekite

    Father Kodak Guest

    Well, they have made a break of sorts with the G series lenses, which
    don't have an aperture ring. Hey, I can't use those lenses on my 30
    year old F2!

    Father Kodak
     
    Father Kodak, Jul 19, 2008
    #13
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.