Now that Nikon is outselling Canon....

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by RichA, Oct 8, 2007.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Are we going to see myriad reports of failures of all kinds in the
    Nikons? That was people's excuse for reports of all sorts of problems
    with Canon DSLRs, they made many, therefore we heard more reports of
    problems. Makes sense.
    So I'm waiting for all those Nikon reports. I'm waiting. I'm still
    waiting....
     
    RichA, Oct 8, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Both of mine are working perfectly. :)
     
    Thomas T. Veldhouse, Oct 9, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Same here. There's no reason to think that Nikon would not test their
    cameras before shipping them. Never had problems with Nikon. Hell' even
    the old Mk III was 100% perfect when I got it. I was expecting focusing and
    "ERROR 99" issues, but my copy works great. Canon can make great bodies if
    they set their corporate minds to it.






    Rita
     
    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Oct 9, 2007
    #3
  4. Perhaps you missed the great D200 banding controversy? Or the
    "18-200mm has zoom creep!" complaints, or the 18-135mm/D80/F--
    threads?

    Then there are the perpetual backfocus/frontfocus threads. Some
    of these, like the 80-200mm f/2.8D misfocusing at short distances
    are legitimate. But the most amusing and frustrating one of these
    I've seen is where a user swore that he was seeing backfocus only
    with the 58mm f/1.2 Noct.

    BTW, the figures I've seen only showing Nikon outselling Canon in
    Japan. Worldwide, Canon still had a double-digit edge.
     
    Michael Benveniste, Oct 9, 2007
    #4
  5. RichA

    Guest Guest

    you mean the one that affected a small number of d200 cameras in very
    specific shooting conditions?

    perhaps you missed the canon 5d banding:
    <http://www.dslrphoto.com/2006/02/23/chuck-westfall-comments-on-5d-camer
    a-banding-issues/>

    and an example of it at the bottom of:
    <http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos5d/page25.asp>

    there are also reports of banding on the 20d. here's one thread:
    <http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00B4lR>

    or the mirror falling out of the 5d:
    <http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=24556138>

    and even sensor warping in the original 1ds -- someone on dpreview had
    his warp when he was on a mountain due to the air pressure difference.
    apparently the anti-alias filter was sealed to the sensor with a pocket
    of air inside. at altitude, problems ensued.
    only one user reporting the problem with the noct?

    there are quite a few back-focus/front-focus issues being discussed
    with canon cameras too, and of course the well known focus problems
    with the 1d mark iii.

    anyone expecting perfection in any camera is in for a surprise.
     
    Guest, Oct 9, 2007
    #5
  6. The D200 "banding controversy" was nothing more than a bunch of internet
    noise. The *legitimate* banding issues were of a sample so small that it
    wasn't even 1/10,000th of 1% of the total production of the early released
    models.
    Yep, just internet noise and no real cases.
    That was due to most Nikon shooters buying the 5D for their Nikkors. Now
    with Nikon's High ISO performer with FF this will change.





    Rita
     
    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Oct 9, 2007
    #6
  7. LOL! And people have to ask why NASA never uses Canon lenses and bodies.
    Warping sensors and delaminating lenses are surely embarrassing!





    Rita
     
    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Oct 9, 2007
    #7
  8. You nailed it, man!(or woman)

    It'd be nice if a few others grokked that.
     
    John McWilliams, Oct 9, 2007
    #8
  9. [Canon problems snipped]

    Why the "what about Canon" reflex?

    I never claimed that Canon (or any other manufacturer) didn't have
    production problems as well. I was simply responding to RichA's
    troll about the Nikon reports. The reports were and are out there.

    Nor is the actual number of problems with the D200 germane to that
    question. At least on the forums I was reading at the time, it was
    the dominant issue. Google shows over 57,000 hits on 'D200 +banding'.

    The signal to noise ratio was bad enought that I even created a
    satirical "type MtG banding" shot with my D200:
    http://home.comcast.net/~webwhat/banding.jpg
    It's amusing because the Noct is a manual focus lens. I have yet
    to hear a good explanation on how a manual focus lens can be the
    cause of backfocus or frontfocus issues, but perhaps someone here
    can offer a theory. (Yes, I know about the Noct's field curvature).
    Agreed. But that doesn't stop the posts or people from returning
    perfectly good product based on bad testing. For example, on
    Nikonians, there was a claim that decentering is bad enough that
    one third to one fourth of all Nikon lenses should be rejected.
     
    Michael Benveniste, Oct 9, 2007
    #9
  10. RichA

    Guest Guest

    there are reports of problems with every camera out there.
    i'm not sure what this is supposed to prove. google shows 246k hits
    for 5d banding, 99.5k hits for k10d banding and 276k hits for a100
    banding.
    i get too many redirects and it failed to open.
    maybe he used the focus confirmation light?
    there are idiots everywhere. this is news?:)
     
    Guest, Oct 9, 2007
    #10
  11. About is clueless as allowing foam to blow holes in the heat shield. Nah ...
    NASA is NOT a good example ;-)
     
    Thomas T. Veldhouse, Oct 9, 2007
    #11
  12. Considering the fact that the shuttle is now old and obsolete it is still a
    great feat in engineering. I guess that's like saying that it is acceptable
    for Canon L glass to delaminate when they get to cold?






    Rita
     
    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Oct 9, 2007
    #12
  13. RichA

    Pete D Guest

    Indeed, for every item ever manufactured. Everything is a compromise, how
    much compromise is acceptable to you personally is up to you.

    Pete
     
    Pete D, Oct 9, 2007
    #13
  14. And only looking at the tiles, not the RCC (reinforced
    carbon-carbon) wing edge, which is very sensitive . . . but then
    it always worked with the foam, and the (usually!) slight damages
    never killed anyone, so they are not any problem.
    Considering that the shuttle standards have been slipping in
    _every_ department except for software development[0] to completely
    unacceptable values, because if you have played Russian roulette a
    couple of times and survived, it is obviously an acceptable risk!,
    considering idiotic procedures unable to follow the standards
    they claim to care for[1],
    considering that e.g. certain temperature sensors randomly failed,
    but the very same sensors were used 18 months later, with ZERO
    corrections, until a flight had to be scrapped because 2 failed
    at the same time,
    considering that jets do not fire on command all the time and the
    computers have to choose an alternate set of jets, but the basic
    problem is not fixed, instead management relies on the fallback
    the computers provide for _serious_ problems for these small
    troubles --- and what happens when there is a serious problem?
    considering that the management does not even listen to the
    engineers,
    considering that the management called a 1/3rd burned through O
    ring (never to be damaged) having a factor 3 of safety,
    considering that the management spouts and probably has beliefs
    in safety which has not only derived from bogus math anyone with
    any knowledge in statistics should never make,
    considering further on that the management claimed safety is *so*
    way out of the world that you'd have to take lots of hallucinogens
    to start believe it (300 years long daily launches and only ONE
    SINGLE loss??),[2]
    considering that they did not really learn from the Challenger
    disaster[3]
    - PowerPoint instead of complete sentences,
    - "siginficant/significantly" 5 times on THE SAME PP page ---
    never meaning "statistical siginificant" but ranging from
    "may be detected in some study" to "so much more that
    everybody dies" to "640x more!"
    - bad "summaries" on top of slides: misleading
    "Conversatism" means model, not flight safety, and the
    each bullet point removes more from the positive slant
    . . .

    .. . . well, I don't think NASA is a good example. After all,
    what happens when you mis-measure distances? A short sighted
    Hubble! And what happens when you mix up metrical and
    imperial measurements? A crashed Mars lander. What happens
    when you use an asymetrical solar cell design and have people
    who know it all because they have flown symmetrical designs?
    A Mars probe _telling_ the ground that they are shifting it
    more and more from the path, only to have it burn up in the
    Mars atmosphere . . .
    I don't believe Nikon glass survives when it gets too cold nor
    too hot. Toss a Nikon camera into the sun and see what you
    get back. Or leave it simply unprotected on the moon surface
    and retrive it after a month or two . . .

    You sure have a few URLs concerning the exact circumstances
    the delaminating L glass . . . don't you? Or is that another
    of your hallucinogenic visions?

    -Wolfgang

    [0] But then they still were running on ferrite core memory in
    the Challenger (hard to get even in 1984!) . . . and have to be
    fed more programs from tapes by the astronauts about 4 times
    on a standard flight, because the memory banks are too small.

    [1] Booster parts are recovered. They should be circular to match
    up for reuse. Not only were they stretched with forces way
    outside the allowed parameters, they were declared circular
    when 3 measurements give the correct distance (namely the
    diameter). It's obvious to anyone with any imagination that
    arbitrary shapes can have the correct distance across, while
    being anything but nearly circular. See [2].

    [2] Please see Feynmans comments on the Challenger disaster.
    Yes, he was on the Rogers Commission and has written a
    lot on it e.g. in "What Do You Care What Other People
    Think?" ISBN 0-393-02659-0, ISBN 0-393-32092-8

    See also Appendix F of the Rogers Commission Report.

    [3] See the report of the Columbia Accident Investigation
    Board, which saw many similarities. Dr. Sally Ride was
    on both the CAIB and the Rogers Commission, btw. . . .
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Oct 10, 2007
    #14
  15. Since Nikon does not sell cameras, no complaints come in.
    Nikon released > 10 MILLION[1] D200 early?
    What do you smoke? It must be very powerful, or maybe you are
    as number blind as the NASA management.

    I'd believe you more if you called yourself Napoleon
    Bonaparte.
    Good, the very same is true for all the Canon complains you
    field.
    Sure, Napoleon.
    We'll see how good they perform. Probably it's just a good noise
    blurring, there are only so many photons to go around ...

    Not that I'd not rejoice if Nikon managed 90% QE instead of 35%,
    but good backlit chips are still in the price league of the
    1200mm Canon (If you have to ask, it's too expensive.).

    -Wolfgang

    [1] 1% of 1/10,000 = 1:1,000,000. And there were more than a
    single digit number of cameras involved.

    So 10 MILLION assumes there were _only_ 10 D200 with
    "*legitimate* banding issues". I'd say there were way more
    reports, and not even most photographers complain where you
    or I can see it. So we'll better talk about 100-1,000 MILLION
    cameras in an early run.
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Oct 10, 2007
    #15
  16. Only that the reports are out there. I'm not asserting that that
    one brand is better or worse than another. Incidentially, if you
    add the brands, "k10d +banding +pentax" yields 26,100, and "a100
    +banding +sony" yields 14,100. "d200 +banding +nikon" yields
    57,500.
    Bizarre, but it's only a joke shot anyway.
    In which case, how can it be the fault in the lens? It has no way
    of knowing whether it's illuminating AF sensors or the sensor plane.
     
    Michael Benveniste, Oct 10, 2007
    #16
  17. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Considering NASA has squandered $190B on that putrid white elephant,
    make-work project for out of work Russian nuclear scientists (so they
    don't build bombs for the Arabs), the ISS, I'm amazed they can put
    ANYTHING in space that works at all.
     
    RichA, Oct 10, 2007
    #17
  18. RichA

    RichA Guest

    I've owned four Olympus cameras since 2001. None has had a problem of
    any kind when it comes to their functioning. I've only heard a
    handful of people ever complain of any. Meanwhile companies like
    Canon not only have widely reported an common problems, they seem to
    have had problems in nearly ever aspect of camera function, from
    misaligned sensors, to failed shutters, to mirrors falling off to err
    99, to banding, to leaking of "weather sealed" models, to....You get
    the picture.
     
    RichA, Oct 10, 2007
    #18
  19. http://www.google.com/search?q=k10d++banding++pentax&start=220
    => 223 unique entries.
    http://www.google.com/search?q=a100++banding++sony&start=780
    => 787 unique entries
    http://www.google.com/search?q=d200++banding++nikon&start=590
    => 594 unique entries

    5d banding canon
    http://www.google.com/search?q=+5d+banding+canon &start=710
    => 720 unique entries

    So, if anyone really wants to argue numbers, they first should find
    out if the d200 has out-sold the 5d (which is more or less bought
    by ALL Nikon shooters, according to our very own "Rita" :-> ).
    Gathering, the magic of emptying pockets.

    Maybe all his other lenses are AF, and he only uses AF on
    them, but his focussing screen is off, so if he manually
    focusses, he gets it wrong . . .

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Oct 10, 2007
    #19
  20. If the focusing screen was misadjusted, it would throw off
    the results for AF lenses as well. And of course, at that
    point, it's not the lens's fault.
     
    Michael Benveniste, Oct 10, 2007
    #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.