Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS General Gear Talk Camera Vs. Camera 
Thread started 06 Jan 2016 (Wednesday) 21:02
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Nikon is Feeding Canon its lunch....and them some

 
ejenner
Goldmember
Avatar
3,860 posts
Gallery: 96 photos
Likes: 1033
Joined Nov 2011
Location: Denver, CO
     
Jan 06, 2016 23:28 |  #16

The problem for Nikon is they came out with this Canon-smashing tech after DSLRS gor 'good enough' for the vast majority of people.

When we were going from 4-8-18 MP, there was a noticeable difference. Same when ISO's in the 800-1600 range are vastly different between brands. Now? Sure gear heads will pontificate, but for the rest of us it is more of a 'would be nice' thing.


Edward Jenner
5DIV, M6, GX1 II, Sig15mm FE, 16-35 F4,TS-E 17, TS-E 24, 35 f2 IS, M11-22, M18-150 ,24-105, T45 1.8VC, 70-200 f4 IS, 70-200 2.8 vII, Sig 85 1.4, 100L, 135L, 400DOII.
http://www.flickr.com/​photos/48305795@N03/ (external link)
https://www.facebook.c​om/edward.jenner.372/p​hotos (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
FarmerTed1971
fondling the 5D4
Avatar
6,462 posts
Gallery: 66 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 4053
Joined Sep 2013
Location: Portland, OR
     
Jan 06, 2016 23:42 as a reply to  @ ejenner's post |  #17

So true. It's kinda' all just bells and whistles from here on out right?


Getting better at this - Fuji Xt-2 - Fuji X-Pro2 - Laowa 9mm - 16 1.4 - 18-55 - 23/35/50/90 f2 - 50-140 - flickr (external link) - www.scottaticephoto.co​m (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DJHaze596
Goldmember
Avatar
1,403 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 663
Joined May 2012
Location: Florida
     
Jan 06, 2016 23:44 |  #18

Nice specs indeed but there camera design is beyond awful.


Canon C200 | Canon EOS R | RF 24-105mm f4L
50mm STM | 70-200mm f2.8L II | 100-400mmL II | 400mm f2.8L IS USM
Previously Owned: 1DX Mark II | Canon 5D Mark IV | 7D Mark II | 1D Mark IV

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
KenjiS
"Holy crap its long!"
Avatar
21,374 posts
Gallery: 559 photos
Likes: 2669
Joined Oct 2008
Location: Buffalo, NY
     
Jan 07, 2016 00:13 |  #19

ejenner wrote in post #17847879 (external link)
The problem for Nikon is they came out with this Canon-smashing tech after DSLRS gor 'good enough' for the vast majority of people.

When we were going from 4-8-18 MP, there was a noticeable difference. Same when ISO's in the 800-1600 range are vastly different between brands. Now? Sure gear heads will pontificate, but for the rest of us it is more of a 'would be nice' thing.

Thus why i care more about lenses..

My 7D is a very good camera, High ISO could be better sure, and i wish the AA filter wasnt so aggressive, but ive worked with it for years...

I also care more about getting to shoot more, the 7D draws too much attention so im adding a Mirrorless to my system


Gear, New and Old! RAW Club Member
Wanted: 70-200. Time and good health
Deviantart (external link)
Flickr (This is where my good stuff is!) (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
KenjiS
"Holy crap its long!"
Avatar
21,374 posts
Gallery: 559 photos
Likes: 2669
Joined Oct 2008
Location: Buffalo, NY
     
Jan 07, 2016 00:17 |  #20

Wilt wrote in post #17847876 (external link)
If we look in history, the 135 format has had cameras with 'normal' FL defined at 45mm, 50mm, 52mm, 55mm and 58mm...all have been delivered with FF bodies as 'normal'. The industry took a while to apparently standardize at 50mm, but the Canon 35mm f/1.4 can certainly fit within the classification of 'normal' for APS-C. After all, 35*1.6 = 56mm. Admittedly something of 31.25mm better equals the FOV of the typical 50mm FL for FF, but this is getting picky.

Some folks would consider a 35mm to be "normal" as well.. id define a normal lens as between a 35-50..

Personally i did like the FoV of my 28mm f/1.8 on my 7D.. something about 42 i think.. 50 works well too however..

I adore my Sigmalux, Dont get me wrong, Fantastic lens, Gorgeous bokeh and ive frequently considered a FF body for it. But the truth is i like my high pixel density on my APS-C camera


Gear, New and Old! RAW Club Member
Wanted: 70-200. Time and good health
Deviantart (external link)
Flickr (This is where my good stuff is!) (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
lesz42
Member
96 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 59
Joined Dec 2006
Location: wrexham
     
Jan 07, 2016 00:52 |  #21

picture taken with D5 , wont look anything different on screen compared to the 1dx ..... wont be magically better




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
panicatnabisco
Senior Member
Avatar
972 posts
Gallery: 33 photos
Likes: 325
Joined Apr 2012
Location: Mountain View, CA
     
Jan 07, 2016 01:01 |  #22

that 4 year old camera sure smoked the one that's so new it's even released yet :rolleyes:


Canon 1DX III | 1DX | 6D II | 6D | 16-35/2.8 II | 24-70/2.8 II | 35/1.4 II | 50/1.8 | 70-200/2.8 IS II | 85/1.4 IS | 100/2.8 IS macro | 200mm f/2 | 400/2.8 IS II | 2xIII
Leica M8.2 | Noctilux 50 f/1 | Elmarit 90/2.8
afimages.net (external link) | Facebook (external link) | instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Archibald
You must be quackers!
Avatar
9,964 posts
Gallery: 464 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 24924
Joined May 2008
Location: Calgary
     
Jan 07, 2016 01:06 |  #23

KenjiS wrote in post #17847919 (external link)
Some folks would consider a 35mm to be "normal" as well.. id define a normal lens as between a 35-50..

According to many, the "normal" focal length is the diagonal of the format. By that definition, normal for 35mm format would be 43mm. In real life, the FL was longer for SLR lenses because it was cheaper to make those when a mirror box had to be accommodated. That wasn't necessary for rangefinders, so rangefinder cameras had wider standard lenses, roughly around 38-45mm.

These days lenses are way fancier with less cost restrictions, so I think we could safely go back to the old definition. And that would be 28mm for crop sensors.

I don't think there is an EF-S 28mm f/1.8, but we could use the EF version.


Sony RX10 IV, Canon 7D2, Canon 90D, assorted Canon lenses
C&C always welcome.
Picture editing OK
Donate to POTN here

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
frankchn
Senior Member
460 posts
Likes: 158
Joined Jun 2009
Post edited over 4 years ago by frankchn.
     
Jan 07, 2016 01:11 |  #24

Canon will release the successor to the 1D-X in the next 3 months anyway (in fact probably by the end of February right before the CP+ show) and then we'll see.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
KenjiS
"Holy crap its long!"
Avatar
21,374 posts
Gallery: 559 photos
Likes: 2669
Joined Oct 2008
Location: Buffalo, NY
     
Jan 07, 2016 01:23 |  #25

Archibald wrote in post #17847963 (external link)
According to many, the "normal" focal length is the diagonal of the format. By that definition, normal for 35mm format would be 43mm. In real life, the FL was longer for SLR lenses because it was cheaper to make those when a mirror box had to be accommodated. That wasn't necessary for rangefinders, so rangefinder cameras had wider standard lenses, roughly around 38-45mm.

These days lenses are way fancier with less cost restrictions, so I think we could safely go back to the old definition. And that would be 28mm for crop sensors.

I don't think there is an EF-S 28mm f/1.8, but we could use the EF version.

I had, and just got rid of, the EF-S 28mm f/1.8, It BADLY needs an update IMHO...

it was mushy soft till about f/2.8 and had bad flare. Was extremely fast focusing and light, just not really a "good" lens...

Also tried the 35mm f/2, Atrocious bokeh from the 5-blade aperture


Gear, New and Old! RAW Club Member
Wanted: 70-200. Time and good health
Deviantart (external link)
Flickr (This is where my good stuff is!) (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Choderboy
I Chimp, therefore I am
Avatar
6,337 posts
Gallery: 128 photos
Likes: 4699
Joined Jul 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
     
Jan 07, 2016 01:34 |  #26

KenjiS wrote in post #17847985 (external link)
I had, and just got rid of, the EF-S 28mm f/1.8, It BADLY needs an update IMHO...

it was mushy soft till about f/2.8 and had bad flare. Was extremely fast focusing and light, just not really a "good" lens...

Also tried the 35mm f/2, Atrocious bokeh from the 5-blade aperture


I think you mean the EF 28 1.8.


Dave
Image editing OK

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
KenjiS
"Holy crap its long!"
Avatar
21,374 posts
Gallery: 559 photos
Likes: 2669
Joined Oct 2008
Location: Buffalo, NY
     
Jan 07, 2016 01:40 |  #27

Choderboy wrote in post #17847987 (external link)
I think you mean the EF 28 1.8.

Indeed, my bad


Gear, New and Old! RAW Club Member
Wanted: 70-200. Time and good health
Deviantart (external link)
Flickr (This is where my good stuff is!) (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
PNPhotography
Senior Member
Avatar
805 posts
Gallery: 9 photos
Likes: 58
Joined Sep 2007
Location: central PA
     
Jan 07, 2016 04:03 |  #28

Canon better get off their duff and release some amaizing new FF models-the gap between Canon and Nikon is getting very wide. If it weren't for my awesome 70-200 and 135 I'd be shooting Nikon by now.


6D|7D|7DMKII|Nikon D750|Nikon 85 F1.8|Nikon D5500|G15| Gripped|300F4|35F2IS|8​5 F1.8|135L F2|200L F2.8|17-55 F2.8|70-200L F2.8 MKII|430EX|
https://www.facebook.c​om …2755174446/?ref​=bookmarks (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bassat
"I am still in my underwear."
8,075 posts
Likes: 2739
Joined Oct 2015
     
Jan 07, 2016 04:14 |  #29
bannedPermanent ban

canon rookie wrote in post #17848045 (external link)
Canon better get off their duff and release some amaizing new FF models-the gap between Canon and Nikon is getting very wide. If it weren't for my awesome 70-200 and 135 I'd be shooting Nikon by now.

I switched from film to digital about seven years ago. My choice of Canon was largely motivated by the large variety of relatively inexpensive, high quality lenses available compared to Nikon. That is still true. I've got about $10,000 worth of Canon glass and accessories in my closet. None of the cameras or lenses I already own got one iota worse because Nikon released a new body. Changing brands every time one or the other has a 'new and improved' something or other is a fool's errand. A very expensive one.

For the 99.7% of us who DON'T push our gear to the limit with every shot, Nikon's release is meaningless.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bassat
"I am still in my underwear."
8,075 posts
Likes: 2739
Joined Oct 2015
     
Jan 07, 2016 04:23 |  #30
bannedPermanent ban

KenjiS wrote in post #17847985 (external link)
I had, and just got rid of, the EF-S 28mm f/1.8, It BADLY needs an update IMHO...

it was mushy soft till about f/2.8 and had bad flare. Was extremely fast focusing and light, just not really a "good" lens...

Also tried the 35mm f/2, Atrocious bokeh from the 5-blade aperture

I guess we all have different tastes. I really like my 28 1.8 on both formats. The fact that the corners are crap at f/2.8 doesn't bother me a bit. From f/2.8 to f/8, the 28 1.8 is every bit as good as the 24 IS. The IS is nice enough, I suppose, but 3 stops of vignetting at f/2.8 is a killer. You can't fix that in post.

The 35 f/2 was updated years ago. Try the new model.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

96,156 views & 414 likes for this thread
Nikon is Feeding Canon its lunch....and them some
FORUMS General Gear Talk Camera Vs. Camera 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is kevln
606 guests, 328 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.