Nikon maintains DSLR lead over Canon

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by frederick, Jul 13, 2007.

  1. frederick

    Alan Browne Guest

    .... as I said earlier (somewhere) in this mess...
    "Perfection is the enemy of good enough."
    -Mikhail Timofeevich Kalashnikov

    Cheers,
    Alan
     
    Alan Browne, Jul 18, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  2. frederick

    Alan Browne Guest

    I don't know the exact answer and I'm sure Canon and Pentax and the
    others won't give all of the answer...
     
    Alan Browne, Jul 18, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  3. frederick

    Bill Funk Guest

    You still offer no proof.

    --
    THIS IS A SIG LINE; NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY!

    Al Gore's son was pulled over by police on the
    San Diego Freeway Tuesday with marijuana, Valium,
    Xanax and Vicodin on him. The kid never had a
    chance. He got hooked on downers at an early
    age listening to his father read him bedtime
    stories.
     
    Bill Funk, Jul 18, 2007
  4. Is it possible that rephrasing the statement into:

    "IS doesn't work well with very slow shutter speeds" (e.g. 1/10s)

    makes it more credible?

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Jul 18, 2007
  5. frederick

    frederick Guest

    Yes I'd seen those stats for 2006 - couldn't find a link to them.
    They are very close to the % market shares for 2006 reported by BCN in
    Japan, and those market shares for Canon and Nikon have reversed since
    December 2006.
     
    frederick, Jul 18, 2007
  6. frederick

    Bill Funk Guest

    Yes, but that has absolutey nothing to do with WA, which was her
    premise.

    --
    THIS IS A SIG LINE; NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY!

    Al Gore's son was pulled over by police on the
    San Diego Freeway Tuesday with marijuana, Valium,
    Xanax and Vicodin on him. The kid never had a
    chance. He got hooked on downers at an early
    age listening to his father read him bedtime
    stories.
     
    Bill Funk, Jul 18, 2007
  7. Proof was given you just didn't want to believe it. This leave you with two
    choices, test it for yourself as described above or wait till Roger posts
    his findings. Roger's findings will support mine.





    Rita
     
    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Jul 18, 2007
  8. frederick

    ASAAR Guest

    I provided my own definative proof. Unfortunately I wrote it on
    the edges of a restaurant napkin, one which I can no longer find.
    I'm sure that this has happened to many more people than just to
    Fermat and myself. It's a hazard of the trade. I hope that Roger
    takes better care of his papers than others do with their napkins.
    :)
     
    ASAAR, Jul 18, 2007
  9. frederick

    Neil H. Guest

    Aha. That makes more sense.
    http://www.pentaximaging.com/files/scms_docs/SHAKE_REDUCTION_FACT_SHEET.pdf

    Interesting. I wonder how (or even whether) anyone has studied exactly which
    directions of camera movement contribute what amount to camera shake visible
    in the photo. It seems to me it would be an extremely difficult thing to
    evaluate, since the camera-moving part is human and presumably not very
    repeatable.

    Neil
     
    Neil H., Jul 19, 2007
  10. frederick

    ASAAR Guest

    Good stuff. I'm almost ashamed to admit it, but many years ago I
    had some of the cheaper stuff, Killian's Red, and quite liked it.
    From what I recently discovered, after Coors licensed it in 1956, it
    was an ale, later remade as a lager. My guess is that when I had
    it, it was still an ale. If not, maybe it was just a bad batch. :)
     
    ASAAR, Jul 19, 2007
  11. frederick

    Neil H. Guest

    As Alan has pointed out, the error and ignorance in this instance are yours,
    not mine. I presume that makes it much more tolerable to you and not
    "extremely offensive" at all.

    That is a large part of what newsgroups are for: opinions, corrections, free
    exchange of ideas and information, etc. Perhaps all of that is "extremely
    offensive" to you as well, in which case one wonders what you think
    newsgroups might be good for.

    Neil
     
    Neil H., Jul 19, 2007
  12. frederick

    Neil H. Guest

    Don't you hate when that happens? Dang.

    I remember when the solution to the Grand Unified Theory (which had always
    eluded Einstein) came to me in a sort of epiphany while I was drinking a
    beer, and I jotted it down. Unfortunately I didn't keep the napkin and now I
    don't remember any of it, except that the St. Pauli Girl was superb beer.

    Neil
     
    Neil H., Jul 19, 2007
  13. frederick

    Neil H. Guest

    Very interesting. Thanks for posting the link.

    Neil
     
    Neil H., Jul 19, 2007
  14. No:
    http://www.clarkvision.com/gallerie...reasted.roller.c01.24.2007.JZ3F1500b-700.html

    In my experience. IS is not doing as well at 1/10 second, but still
    better than handheld, and it's effectiveness is dropping more
    by 1/4 second and slower. This applies to long as well as short focal
    lengths.

    Roger
     
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Jul 19, 2007
  15. frederick

    Stewey Guest

    IS / VR - whatever you call it, I am a believer.

    I just bought my first VR lens on Saturday and was out playing with it
    seeing what it could do. Nearly sundown and at 1/10 second and 200mm
    zoom hand held sitting on my front step. I can assure you I wouldn't
    have been able to take this pic without VR.

    http://tinyurl.com/398nfx

    Dave Stambaugh
     
    Stewey, Jul 19, 2007
  16. Well, with a wide-angle lens, say 15mm, you would expect to be able to
    hand-hold down to 1/15s, so if IS doesn't work well in that speed range,
    the statements are describing the same effect but in different ways.

    I do agree that if it's true, then it's the shutter speed and not the land
    angle which matters.

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Jul 19, 2007
  17. Not wanting to drag this out, but isn't possible that with wide-angle
    lenses, you're simply more likely to get away with 1/10s without IS?

    Don't get me wrong - I'm a great believer in IS/VR as well, simply trying
    to see where the truth might be in the (perhaps poorely-stated) "IS
    doesn't work for wide-angle lenses".

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Jul 19, 2007
  18. frederick

    ASAAR Guest

    Look at the problem from a different perspective. Using the
    advisory that has enthralled SMS :

    Imagine that you have a very small rifle scope and a very small
    laser pointer welded to your camera. Take four shots(!) of a target
    using first a wide angle lens and then a telephoto, both with and
    without using IS, and using moderately long shutter speeds. But
    don't use the camera's viewfinder. Use the rifle scope. For both
    shots the scope and laser won't know nor care which lens is mounted.
    The laser will show a certain erratic movement during both pictures,
    and if repeated often enough, will 'paint' similar sized trails on
    the target (which may even be visible in the photos) because there's
    no reason for the camera's movement caused by hand movement to be
    any different, other than due to differences caused by different
    lens weights. So contrive a bit more and say that the WA lens has a
    large enough aperture to make it as heavy as the telephoto. <g>

    Assume that the IS/VR correction that's applied is the same for
    both lenses. I don't know if this is true or not. I'd think that
    the IS/VR would have to work a bit harder with the WA lens to be
    able to 'see' the camera's movement. But even if it *did* provide
    the same amount of correction with both lenses, the end result would
    be smaller, but equal sized laser trails on the targets.

    If you make prints of the four types of shots, comparing the size
    of the laser trails made with and without using IS/VR with the
    telephoto vs. the same difference of the two laser trail sizes made
    with the wide angle lens, it's obvious that the sizes of the trails
    in the pictures made with the telephoto will be much larger. So
    even if/though the camera made the same absolute corrections with
    both lenses, the results seen on the WA pictures will be much less
    dramatic, even though the IS/VR corrected the movement by the same
    amount. This is because on the WA photos, the evidence of the
    movement is *much* smaller. If the WA shots are cropped to produce
    enlargements where the images of the targets made by the WA and Tele
    lenses are the same size, then the movements visible in the prints
    with IS/VR off should be about the same, but more importantly, the
    movements made with IS/VR on should also be about the same. But
    when looking at normal, uncropped photos, the effect of IS/VR should
    be much more obvious in the prints made of the telephoto's pictures.

    So I'd say that IS/VR really should work with WA lenses. It's
    just that the benefits of IS/VR are much more difficult to notice
    when examining normal, uncropped prints. Look at both telephoto
    prints and one will be noticeably more blurry. Look at both WA
    prints and they may seem almost equally sharp, until you examine
    them with a loupe. :) And for similar reasons I agree that you're
    "more likely to get away with 1/10s without IS".
     
    ASAAR, Jul 19, 2007
  19. ASAAR wrote:
    []
    Agreed.

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Jul 19, 2007
  20. I kept the original paperwork when I cracked Einstein's theory of positive
    displacement.





    Rita
     
    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Jul 19, 2007
    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.