Can't decide - Nikon vs. Konica Minolta

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by Morgan Perry, Sep 2, 2005.

  1. Morgan Perry

    Pete D Guest

    Yes, thanks P, we know that, we were having a bit of a joke. Only the Oly
    E300 has this problem.
    Pete D, Sep 7, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. Morgan Perry

    Proconsul Guest

    Enjoy your joke - but it remains true that the "issue" of noise is mostly

    Proconsul, Sep 8, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. Morgan Perry

    Pete D Guest

    You are indeed correct but all the Canonites will continue to tell you that
    all Canons are sooooooooooooo much better than every other camera, I
    personally get a bit sick of it so "take the piss" so to speak occasionally.


    Pete D, Sep 8, 2005
  4. Morgan Perry

    Proconsul Guest

    I "hear" that....:)

    I had always hoped that this forum would provide a venue where interested
    users could share useful information and provide insight. Instead, it seems
    to be a place where a gang of puerile wonks come to parade their "superior"
    knowledge and to ask a never-ending series of incredibly stupid questions.
    Add to that the silly arguments about whose artistic abilities are better
    than whose and one grows weary of reading the verbal excreta of idiots......

    The Canonites are simply engaged in blinding repeating the nonsense they
    collect and circulate among themselves. They typify the modern definition of
    "validation", i.e., one lies and the other swears to it. Then two other
    apply the same logic to the opposing view. Mindless, stupid and totally

    As I said earlier, my son has a Canon D20 and I have a Nikon D70s. If
    reality is your guide, none of the other cameras currently being offered
    that are "comparable", are worthy of mention in a sane discussion of "entry
    level" DSLRs...! Every expert will attest to the fact that those two cameras
    are leading the pack by a wide margin. As I also said, both the Canon and
    the Nikon take incredibly good pictures - no matter what standard ISO is
    used. Before I bought, I compared 14x20 prints made from both cameras -
    nobody without a microscope who counted pixels could have told the
    difference, Both were of exceptional quality, sharpness and color balance.

    The truth is that the choice is largely one of personal preference. My son
    likes the "feel" of his Canon and while he takes good pictures with my
    Nikon, he PREFERS his Canon. Similarly I like the "feel" of my Nikon better
    although I've taken some great pictures with his Canon.

    Given the above, it's a "Ford" or "Chevrolet" argument and while the
    discussion of differences and why one person prefers one over the other can
    be interesting, rational folks don't dive over the cliff like Canonites nor
    remain silent as do most Nikonites. That fact alone gives one a clue as to
    who selects which camera and why.....:)

    Maybe the nature of this venue will change and the moronic technowonks will
    go back to the Planet Zog from whence they came and a rational discussion
    will yet ensue....

    We can always hope......:)

    Proconsul, Sep 8, 2005
  5. Morgan Perry

    SMS Guest

    Konica-Minolta is not doing well, and may exit the digital SLR business.
    If you go with Canon or Nikon, you'll be assured of a wide variety of
    lenses and accessories, as well as an upgrade path. The D70s is an
    excellent choice.
    SMS, Sep 8, 2005
  6. Morgan Perry

    Pete D Guest


    Firstly, welcome to the world of unmoderatered newsgroups, sure there are
    plenty of idiots here, bit of filtering or ignoring will fix that.

    What you say is correct, they all take great photos, the main difference is
    in the handling. Personally I have neither Canon or Nikon but like some of
    both (not the 300D or the 350D mind you although they certainly take
    perfectly good photos). I am certainly driven by what I can afford as a
    father of four and am really happy that my D-SLR will use pretty much any
    lens ever made with a suitable adapter and will meter properly and take
    perfectly good/great/fantastic shots, perhaps I cannot blow the shots up to
    the size of a bus but then again I don't need to.


    Pete D
    Pete D, Sep 8, 2005
  7. Morgan Perry

    Alan Browne Guest

    That line is getting a bit old. There are no signs othere than petty
    attacks like that above that K-M are on an exit path ... esp. while
    releasing new lenses and a DSLR ( 5D ). For most shooters, K-M have an
    exemplary line of glass.

    The choices of Canon and Nikon are, of course, not bad. But it would be
    harmful to everyone if the adice to buy there only were heeded.

    Alan Browne, Sep 8, 2005
  8. Morgan Perry

    Alan Browne Guest

    The point wasn't to state categorically that noise is or is not an
    issue; simply that the statement that Pete D put up was wrong (whether
    meant truly or in jest).

    Noise is an issue in some cases, though in the "sweet spots" that most
    people tend to shoot (lots of light, comfortable ISO setting, not very
    deep graduated shaddows, small prints (10 x 8)), then it is a non-issue.

    For some photos I did in a bar (dimly lit stage) with available light
    with fast glass, there was no usable speed/ISO setting that didn't
    result in high noise even in a small (5x7) print. A friend, shooting
    similar quality glass and a 20D fared no better, FWIW.

    Alan Browne, Sep 8, 2005
  9. Morgan Perry

    Alan Browne Guest

    It is up to the various contributors to supply higher signal than noise,
    and to ignore what they consider noise.

    Alan Browne, Sep 9, 2005
  10. Morgan Perry

    Proconsul Guest

    With specific reference to one statement by one person, you are correct.
    However, my contention was/is that the incessant petty sniping about ISO
    from so many has grown tedious - not to mention irrelevant if one wishes to
    take good pictures....
    I would suggest that noise is an issue in a very tiny majority of cases
    where one wishes to take photos where there is virtually no light. Under
    normal conditions or using flash, it's irrelevant.....
    I agree, but your example supports my view. The Canonites will insist that
    the fact that the 20D can use ISO 100 while the Nikon D70/D70s can only use
    ISO 200 indicates an IMMENSE superiority for the Canon. In fact, it's an
    irrelevancy. When the light is bad, OTOH, quality deteriorates no matter
    what ISO your camera can utilize or what medium you use. Film has the same
    problem - use higher ISO film and graininess (noise) increases. Again, so
    what? Why do some have to beat that dead horse endlessly?.....:)

    As you've earlier stated, quite clearly and intelligently, your problem
    would/could be solved by getting more light into the camera whether by
    increasing available lighting or using a lens with a larger aperture. In any
    event, ISO settings aren't relevant except in a minor way.....:)

    Proconsul, Sep 9, 2005
  11. Morgan Perry

    Proconsul Guest

    I agree and have tried to do as you suggest - but I see nothing wrong with
    speaking up when the idiots get too vocal......:) Letting the children play
    without supervision is always a mistake - when the children (of whatever
    age) get out of control, the grownups need to act......:)

    Proconsul, Sep 9, 2005
    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.