Canon's revenge:

Discussion in 'Canon' started by frederick, Jan 27, 2008.

  1. frederick

    frederick Guest

    frederick, Jan 27, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. frederick

    Rudy Benner Guest

    Rudy Benner, Jan 27, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. frederick

    RichA Guest

    RichA, Jan 28, 2008
    #3
  4. frederick

    jean Guest

    What Canon lenses do YOU have? What lenses of any make do YOU have?
     
    jean, Jan 28, 2008
    #4
  5. frederick

    Sosumi Guest

    Seems more like a dream than reality. He forgets one major thing: first
    they'll have to really get better than Nikon and that will be a difficult
    task.
    People don't forget the bogus focus of the 1d MIII. Just putting out more
    camera's with more bugs is not going to impress the majority of people. More
    models is not as important to Nikon, who seem to prefer less models, but
    with higher and more reliable quality.
    The reliability of a company is very important. It made me buy my D300
    "blind folded" and I never had any regrets.
    Another "small" thing Canon won't be able to trump is Nikon as a seller to
    NASA. This is a major sales "killer", a twisted thorn in the side of Canon
    DSLR sales.
     
    Sosumi, Jan 28, 2008
    #5
  6. frederick

    RichA Guest

    Olympus, Nikon, Zeiss, Leica, Konica, Tamron, Tokina, Kiron, Pentax,
    Minolta and a smattering of lesser known brands.
    No Sigma, no Canon.
     
    RichA, Jan 28, 2008
    #6
  7. frederick

    RichA Guest

    It's too late for that anyway. NASA just got 14 D2Xs's. I figured
    NASA might have adopted Canon (along with faulty Shuttle preparation)
    when that scumbag Administrator Golden developed the idea of "faster,
    better, cheaper." We all know what that lead to.
     
    RichA, Jan 28, 2008
    #7
  8. frederick

    jean Guest

    "RichA" <> a écrit dans le message de ...
    Olympus, Nikon, Zeiss, Leica, Konica, Tamron, Tokina, Kiron, Pentax,
    Minolta and a smattering of lesser known brands.
    No Sigma, no Canon.

    Well then stop slamming Canon since you don't have any of their equipment!
    Talk about what YOU know rather than being an internet parrot!
     
    jean, Jan 28, 2008
    #8
  9. frederick

    RichA Guest

    I've used their stuff, and having used it, I wouldn't own it.
    Besides, the entire lens adapter industry is based on Canon users
    adapting other mfg lenses to their cameras. That should tell you
    something.

    Start reading this forum, it'll enlighten you.

    http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/board/55
     
    RichA, Jan 28, 2008
    #9
  10. Especially now with the D3 readily available and taking the photography
    world by storm. Even the two new Nikkors are having Canon users drooling
    and jumping back to Nikon. Canon is dead in the water since they can't
    produce lenses half as good as the 14-24/2.8 and 24-70/2.8 Nikkors.





    Rita
     
    Rita Berkowitz, Jan 28, 2008
    #10
  11. Just as I predicted! I knew Canon users would want the 14-24/2.8 Nikkor,
    but I never thought they'd go this crazy over it since they now have a way
    of adapting it. What's really sad is Canon's flagship 24/1.4 doesn't even
    come close to Nikon's inexpensive zoom.

    <http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/594820>

    When you read Canon users comments like this you know it's sad being let
    down by a company you heavily invested into a poorly designed lens system.

    "This is what the Canon 16-35mm MK II should have been. The Canon 14mm MkII
    looks similarly unimpressive. Nikon is becoming more and more attractive..."



    Rita
     
    Rita Berkowitz, Jan 28, 2008
    #11
  12. frederick

    RichA Guest

    I read another comment the other day in one of the mags where the
    writer was lauding the Nikon 14-24mm and saying they had no trouble
    turning out fine WA lenses, unlike "some" companies. In deference to
    advertisers, they didn't name it, but we all know who they meant. I
    would have thought that the 16-35mm, (apparently re-designed by Canon
    specifically to combat the perception their creaky old film lenses are
    terrible with digital sensors) would have been substantially better,
    but when tested the differences between it and the old one were
    miniscule.
     
    RichA, Jan 28, 2008
    #12
  13. frederick

    Charles Guest

    Rita, you are a hoot! Half as good?

    Modulation transfer function? Spherical distortion? Chromatic aberrations?
    Color fringing? Internal reflections? Focus speed? Focus ratio, center to
    edge? Image stabilization? Weather sealing? Build quality? Repeatability
    (QC)?

    Post some evidence.
     
    Charles, Jan 28, 2008
    #13
  14. frederick

    dullpain Guest

    A lens is a tool.
    In the hands of those with limited skill the best tool is worse than a
    mediocre tool in skilled hands.
    Sic semper cameraholics.
     
    dullpain, Jan 29, 2008
    #14
  15. frederick

    jean Guest

    "RichA" <> a écrit dans le message de ...
    I've used their stuff, and having used it, I wouldn't own it.
    Besides, the entire lens adapter industry is based on Canon users
    adapting other mfg lenses to their cameras. That should tell you
    something.

    Start reading this forum, it'll enlighten you.

    http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/board/55

    Start USING your lenses (if you have any*) rather than blabbering what
    OTHERS have to say.

    Over and out!

    * You can say what you want about what you have or claim to have, you have
    as much credibility as a certain president has with an intern and a cigar in
    an oval office.
     
    jean, Jan 29, 2008
    #15
  16. In Canon's defense they did make two major "improvements" to the 16-35/2.8L.
    They had to change the silk screening to add the "II" designation to the
    side of the lens and tap the threads to accept 82mm filters to further piss
    off their customers and remind them they now have an "improved" "II" version
    of the same old piece of crap.





    Rita
     
    Rita Berkowitz, Jan 29, 2008
    #16
  17. And I'm being generous and politically correct to Canon.
    Yes, these seem to be areas where Canon is struggling.
    The D3 seals the deal!





    Rita
     
    Rita Berkowitz, Jan 29, 2008
    #17
  18. frederick

    Jufi Guest

    Nice lens. Too bad you have to stick on those low resolution high noise
    Nikon bodies.

    ;-)
     
    Jufi, Jan 29, 2008
    #18
  19. frederick

    Paul Furman Guest

    Nikon will want a high MP full frame model soon to take advantage of all
    these new pro lenses. The 14-24 sounds spectacular from that review (and
    they do a pretty good job) but damn is it big:
    http://www.digitalreview.ca/Content/pics/D300/Nikon-D3-12-24mm.jpg
     
    Paul Furman, Jan 29, 2008
    #19
  20. frederick

    Paul Furman Guest

    Paul Furman, Jan 29, 2008
    #20
    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.