Ultimate Machine Gunner Dumps Nikon for Canon!

Ya, we have one of those "tech support" radio shows here on the weekends...
Basically, it's a complete waste of time, with the host suggesting every
generic "fix" you've ever heard of, and then wandering around in the dark,
talking to people who often don't know enough to even describe the
problem... I always wonder to myself...is there really anyone sitting by
their computer hoping to fix something based on listening to this show??? I
suspect most in the audience are passers-by like me who find the whole
notion of a tech support call-in show simply amusing, if not a bit obscene.

 

Doug, I develope my own B&W still today. I print on my Beseler
enlarger with awesome Rodenstock Lens's. The look is just different
than digital, silver is...terrific. We ain't going away, the images we
make are just unique. I will not give up film in this lifetime. I can
enjoy both digital and the old science simultaneously....pleasure
enchanced.
--------------------------

If you have Photoshop and a digital camera whose sensor closely matches the
texture (noise) of film, you might be interested in this technique:
http://www.annika1980.com/D-Macs/monochrome-digital.htm

I use a Panasonic FZ50 because it's images are better quality for "Art"
conversion than Canon's are. I've had success with Olympus "E" cameras using
Kodak sensors too.

The Panasonic sensor very closely matches the grain characteristics of most
film speeds when saved as a RAW file. The noise can be manipulated with
under and over exposure and the exposure recovered in Adobe's Lightroom
(previously RawShooter Pro). See... There is a use for digital noise!

I recently made an enlargement of this photo via the digital head enlarger,
that expert photographic Judges could only tell was a digital print by using
a microscope... Even then, one still couldn't decide if the print I made
should be judged as a monochrome photograph or in the colour section!

Douglas

 

: Try reading that again, before you go off on an anti-Canon rant. He uses
: NIKON cameras!
:
: --
: Skip Middleton
----------------

With a 5D at a fast moving school shoot, My daughter managed to average 36
shots per hour over a 5 hour period. THAT is moving it along. Changing kids
and classes in the process. The only way you would possibly be able to use
the advertised speed of this Canon is if you had:

1. Exceptionally well lit subjects
2. Were able to use a shutter speed fast enough to allow the speed of
exposures.
3. Didn't give a hoot if the pictures you were taking had any depth of
field.

Unless... Canon has devised a sensor that works at 1600 ISO with no more
noise and image degradation than the current model has at ISO 100.

To justify the cost of such a camera you need to be able to take and sell
some pretty exclusive photos. Have you ever seen the competition at a ball
game? All with canon sponsored lens. All shooting for THAT shot.

It's almost as ridiculous as believing you can build a profitable business
selling 10¢ photo prints out of a $250,000 processor! Not impossible, just
not probable.

Douglas

 

heh heh.. I wonder the same thing. Obviously some people call in hoping for
help. You can hear by their tone through out a call that they have no idea
what the host is telling them.

obscene.

For me it's a few things that have to go wrong in order for me to hear this
show. 1. I have to be up before noon on Sunday. 2. I have to have
forgotten a decent CD to listen to. 3. The competing radio in this time
slot has to be about fishing, cigars, or yard care.

IMO this show amounts to little more than a two hour infomercial for the
host's tech support company.

--
Mark

Mostly photography...
http://www.marklauter.com

I was heavily armed and absent minded. You pay a high price for that in
the Army.
- Dom

 

Ah, usenet.

Nothing bolsters feelings of community while lamenting purpose and
meaning quite like ridiculous fifty year old quips. I suppose
familiar things are a comfort during these dark times.

Take care,
des

 

I was at a country eating house the other day, and an older couple were
sitting on the porch, while their daughter was taking a shot of them
with their lunch. I offered to take a shot with the daughter together
with her parents, and she handed over a D50. I set my Canon on a nearby
table, and proceeded to line up the shot.

The first thing that met my eye was the heavy black lines outlining the
focus points on the screen, far too thick after the very fine lines on
the Canon screen. Then, when I let the shutter go, I nearly dropped the
camera. The noise sounded like the whole guts of the D50 had fallen
out, like a tin can hitting the ground. I was amazed at the racket that
shutter and mirror made. That experience made me rather glad I had a
Canon, whose shutter is so quiet that you can't hear it more than a few
feet away.

There's Nikonians, and there's Canonites, and I am glad to be one of the
latter.

Colin D.

 

Just as long as my cell phone has a flash and a sepia button on it, I'm
happy. Bob Hickey

 

Skip....do the math please...the guy is full of himself...it just does
not compute! I'm getting so tired of the Canon VS Nikon debate, I
think I'll switch to the final camera/lens future survivor..Sony.

 

Skip....do the math please...the guy is full of himself...it just does
not compute! I'm getting so tired of the Canon VS Nikon debate, I
think I'll switch to the final camera/lens future survivor..Sony.
<<
Read this carefully, wayne, he is using Nikon cameras, the number of shots,
the possibility or unlikelihood of him being able to accumulate the claimed
number is beside the point. You complained about the "BS coming out of the
Canon cameras and users..." Neither he, nor the OP, Rita, are Canon
shooters, although Rita does own a 5D.

 

Have you ever looked at Sony's lenses? All tell you this; they don't even
look like they are anatomically correct. Surely any Canon or Nikon shooter
will find them ergonomically pleasing as jerking off a snapping turtle and
just as comfortable.







Rita

 

I was looking at the ones on the prototypes that Sony was showing at PMA,
they do seem a little weird...

 

Rita, you must stop sniffing the glue in the morning.

I have 6 Minolta lenses. All of them are very pleasing ergonomically
(well, the 300 f/2.8 is nothing you want to handhold very long). I've
had other Minolta lenses that were pretty good with the exception of the
28-80 xi.

They are all pretty well built and properly held, like any lens, are as
ergonomically good as most.

Sony's new lenses include some plastic crap that is no worse than Nikon
or Canon plastic crap. Sony's new lenses also include their own badged
versions of the better Minolta's and some new lenses designed by CZ
(although the manufacturing source remains unlcear).

http://gizmodo.com/photogallery/alphaflag/1556899

.... is the CZ 85mm f/1.4 on the new "pro" Sony body. Hmm, what could
that massive prism mean? Hopefully it is the same massive prism as in
the ergonomic champion of SLR's, the Maxxum 9. Which would likely mean...

Cheers,
Alan

 

Sony, first in the world of electronics, soon to be first in the world
of cameras and lenses. Adios Canon & Nikon. Why? They have both the
intellectual and financial capital to pull it off. Just watch.

 

Down boy. The problem with Sony is that they've lost the "Walkman"
knack of the late 70s'/early 80's when they were innovative and
exciting. I haven't seen a "wow" from Sony in years.

Sony is now an "also ran" in electronics and they are not a great optics
house. Their Betacams usually come with Fujinon, not Sony glass. Their
consumer video and P&S cameras come with subcontractor made and designed
(or Carl Zeiss "design") lenses.

Canon and Nikon have the optics accumen that is the result of
experience, technology and application feedback from the market. Nikon
and Canon are the weapon of choice for most photojournalists, sports and
nature shooters in the world. They are not going to jump to Sony
without a very strong and compelling reason. Even if Sony draw par to
Canon or Nikon in every respect and charge 10% less, it would talke 5 to
10 years to get a noteworthy tunrover. Sony's modest lens lineup has a
long way to go.

Sony is a financial machine. High capital costs to develop optics (even
if by a reputable supplier such as CZ) and market them and get the cash
flows that keep the bean counters and investors happy. In a workd where
consumer electronics designs have a market shelf life of 6 months or so,
the longer term foundation work of establishing a professional level SLR
system takes particularly well girded financial loins.

Sony have made a wise move in adopting Carl Zeiss (without fab clarity)
for the DSLR line. But that is only a part of the equation.

Sony in-camera image processing has been moderately good at best. They
need to at least match Canon _at about the same time_ to get people to
pay attention.

Sony has given me some relief in showing the protos of two new "real"
DSLR's at PMA'07. Some hints that the pro machine might even sport a FF
sensor with a significant pixel density.

Even if they WOW everyone, people will maintain lingering doubts over
their staying resolve for the long term. A pro can easilly have $20K or
more in glass alone and while he may amortize it over 5 years, he'll
keep his best glass for 10 to 20 years or more.

Sony have a very long road ahead.

Having put up only a few of their challenges above ... I do hope they
are very successful. And that is good for Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Oly and
all the other camera users as well as competition breeds improvements.

I personally have over CAD$10K worth of Minolta glass, so I really hope
to use it on the Sony 'pro' body in 2008...

I have put my Minolta 300 f/2.8 up for sale with the 1.4x and 2.0 X
Minolta APO TC II. I don't use these very much at all so I'd rather buy
more Hasselblad lenses... a 40mm and a 120 Makro for example.

Cheers,
Alan

 

I was just fishing and you took the bait.

 

Touch`

 

Alan, when are you going to spring for the H3 D-39?

 

When I'm obscenely wealthy and the H3/39 is compatible with
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/photokina2006/Misc/IMG_0919.jpg



Cheers,
Alan

 

No, wayne, you screwed up and are trying to cover your ass.

 

You sound a bit like an insecure Canon shooter.