Nikon....wake up!

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Nikon....wake up! 

On 15-Oct-05 10:08, Skip M wrote:

Skip:

what email program are you using? My thunderbird always cuts your
emails and does not quote them.


I must admit I do not know the old EOS-5, frankly I always
considered Canon controls inferior to these of Nikon, regardless
Canon's advance in their lens technology (silent focusing and
of course the IS...)

Indeed, I stand corrected about the 16-35, Dpreview used the 17-35mm.
Somehow I doubt that the difference between these both is so
dramatic. Tests does show indeed that the 16-35 is better, but
the 17-35 L was throughout an excellent lens, sure comparable
to Nikon's counterpart. One such side of side comparison of the
16-35 and 17-35 is on Luminous Landscapes.

Thomas
 >> Stay informed about: Nikon....wake up! 

ThomasH wrote:
> On 15-Oct-05 10:08, Skip M wrote:
>
> Skip:
>
> what email program are you using? My thunderbird always cuts your
> emails and does not quote them.
>
He's using OE. Info is available by going to View->Headers->All. You can
then toggle between seeing nothing but the Subject line and Sender and
the whole enchilada.

Thunderbird has Prefs. settings to manage quoting. At the same time, I
see that several of Skip's posts begin with --space return, which many
Newsreaders treat as the marker for the signature lines, and delete
accordingly. It's a nice feature, but OE doesn't make it easy for those
who wish to follow NG convention of the sig delimiter.

--
John McWilliams

"Andre, a simple peasant, had only one thing on his mind as he crept
along the East wall: 'Andre creep ... Andre creep ... Andre creep'."
 >> Stay informed about: Nikon....wake up! 

On 15-Oct-05 12:32, John McWilliams wrote:
> ThomasH wrote:
>
>> On 15-Oct-05 10:08, Skip M wrote:
>>
>> Skip:
>>
>> what email program are you using? My thunderbird always cuts your
>> emails and does not quote them.
>>
> He's using OE. Info is available by going to View->Headers->All. You can
> then toggle between seeing nothing but the Subject line and Sender and
> the whole enchilada.
>
> Thunderbird has Prefs. settings to manage quoting. At the same time, I
> see that several of Skip's posts begin with --space return, which many

This is all correct, and is precisely the reason for the problem in
quotes in Thunderbird. It cuts off everything on a line beginning with
"-- space ret"

> Newsreaders treat as the marker for the signature lines, and delete
> accordingly. It's a nice feature, but OE doesn't make it easy for those
> who wish to follow NG convention of the sig delimiter.
>
 >> Stay informed about: Nikon....wake up! 

In article ,
ThomasH wrote:
>
>Every lens might be challenged by the large sensor because the sensors
>are not flat, they have a depth and corner pixels needs microlenses
>to be better illuminated. These microlenses cause additional aberrations
>with every even best lens.

This is superstitious piffle. I'm using a 5D and am seeing *no* chromtaic
abberation at the edges *at all* with my EF 50mm f/1.4. Some of my lenses
are showing chromatic abberation, the same lenses produced chromatic
abberation on my 10D, and they produce it on film as well. The only reason
it's more of an issue with full-frame DSLRs is that they allow far more
enlargement than 35mm colour film ever did. You are arguing for smaller
pixel counts, not smaller sensors.

Furthermore, if a lens is giving you chromatic abberation, then fix it in
ACR. Gosh, that was hard.
 >> Stay informed about: Nikon....wake up! 

On 15-Oct-05 11:28, Chris Brown wrote:
> In article ,
> ThomasH wrote:
>
>>Every lens might be challenged by the large sensor because the sensors
>>are not flat, they have a depth and corner pixels needs microlenses
>>to be better illuminated. These microlenses cause additional aberrations
>>with every even best lens.
>
> This is superstitious piffle. I'm using a 5D and am seeing *no* chromtaic
> abberation at the edges *at all* with my EF 50mm f/1.4. Some of my lenses
> are showing chromatic abberation, the same lenses produced chromatic
> abberation on my 10D, and they produce it on film as well. The only reason
> it's more of an issue with full-frame DSLRs is that they allow far more
> enlargement than 35mm colour film ever did. You are arguing for smaller
> pixel counts, not smaller sensors.

Hm, let me think....
Hm... no, I do argue about larger sensor after all. I am glad
that you get good results. You paid a premium price for such
camera...

>
> Furthermore, if a lens is giving you chromatic abberation, then fix it in
> ACR. Gosh, that was hard.

ACR, you say? Well whatever ACR might be, I am sorry that I was
so hard on you. Take it easy, shoot images with your $1500 camera,
for which you paid so willingly $3300. I will rather invest in
lenses, and for flight tickets to be brought to places where I
would like to shoot.

But, this is also a matter of free choice, isn't it?
Who am I to doubt your new toy.

I assumed that virtually everybody would be too wise to buy EOS-5D
for such money, and I was wrong. I might get it too, once the price
will collapse, and collapse it will.

Thomas
 >> Stay informed about: Nikon....wake up! 

"ThomasH" wrote in message

> On 15-Oct-05 10:08, Skip M wrote:
>
> Skip:
>
> what email program are you using? My thunderbird always cuts your
> emails and does not quote them.
OE.
>
>
> I must admit I do not know the old EOS-5, frankly I always
> considered Canon controls inferior to these of Nikon, regardless
> Canon's advance in their lens technology (silent focusing and
> of course the IS...)

If we all liked the same thing, all things would be the same. I prefer the
command dial on the Canons, it's more like the controls on my old AT-1 and
A-1 FD mount Canons. My wife prefers it too, but if it were clearly better,
then you would too. And so would the guys who design Nikons and 1 series
Canons...
>
> Indeed, I stand corrected about the 16-35, Dpreview used the 17-35mm.
> Somehow I doubt that the difference between these both is so
> dramatic. Tests does show indeed that the 16-35 is better, but
> the 17-35 L was throughout an excellent lens, sure comparable
> to Nikon's counterpart. One such side of side comparison of the
> 16-35 and 17-35 is on Luminous Landscapes.

I used (rented) a 17-35 a few years ago, that was why I decided to get the
Sigma, the Canon wasn't any better, and it was $900 more expensive. I now
have the 16-35, so, while I haven't tested them side by side, I have tested
the 16-35 against the Sigma, which beat out the Canon 17-35, and I can
attest, there is a huge difference in the two lenses.

I didn't see the comparo on LL.

>
> Thomas
 >> Stay informed about: Nikon....wake up! 

ThomasH wrote:
> On 15-Oct-05 11:28, Chris Brown wrote:
>> In article ,
>> ThomasH wrote:
>>
>>> Every lens might be challenged by the large sensor because the
>>> sensors are not flat, they have a depth and corner pixels needs
>>> microlenses to be better illuminated. These microlenses cause additional
>>> aberrations with every even best lens.
>>
>> This is superstitious piffle. I'm using a 5D and am seeing *no*
>> chromtaic abberation at the edges *at all* with my EF 50mm f/1.4.
>> Some of my lenses are showing chromatic abberation, the same lenses
>> produced chromatic abberation on my 10D, and they produce it on film
>> as well. The only reason it's more of an issue with full-frame DSLRs
>> is that they allow far more enlargement than 35mm colour film ever
>> did. You are arguing for smaller pixel counts, not smaller sensors.
>
> Hm, let me think....
> Hm... no, I do argue about larger sensor after all. I am glad
> that you get good results. You paid a premium price for such
> camera...
>
>>
>> Furthermore, if a lens is giving you chromatic abberation, then fix
>> it in ACR. Gosh, that was hard.
>
> ACR, you say? Well whatever ACR might be, I am sorry that I was
> so hard on you. Take it easy, shoot images with your $1500 camera,
> for which you paid so willingly $3300. I will rather invest in
> lenses, and for flight tickets to be brought to places where I
> would like to shoot.
>
> But, this is also a matter of free choice, isn't it?
> Who am I to doubt your new toy.

A thinly veiled slam from a guy who has inexplicably decided to be an ass.
I don't get it.
Why?
 >> Stay informed about: Nikon....wake up! 

On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 00:21:18 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
number here)@cox..net> who, veiling nothing, slammed:

>> But, this is also a matter of free choice, isn't it?
>> Who am I to doubt your new toy.
>
> A thinly veiled slam from a guy who has inexplicably decided to be an ass.
> I don't get it.
> Why?

You don't know an ass from your elbow?
 >> Stay informed about: Nikon....wake up! 

In article ,
ThomasH wrote:
>>
>> This is superstitious piffle. I'm using a 5D and am seeing *no* chromtaic
>> abberation at the edges *at all* with my EF 50mm f/1.4. Some of my lenses
>> are showing chromatic abberation, the same lenses produced chromatic
>> abberation on my 10D, and they produce it on film as well. The only reason
>> it's more of an issue with full-frame DSLRs is that they allow far more
>> enlargement than 35mm colour film ever did. You are arguing for smaller
>> pixel counts, not smaller sensors.
>
>Hm, let me think....
>Hm... no, I do argue about larger sensor after all.

You really aren't. If chromatic abberation is visible, it is because the
sensor is high enough resolution to show it.

>> Furthermore, if a lens is giving you chromatic abberation, then fix it in
>> ACR. Gosh, that was hard.
>
>ACR, you say? Well whatever ACR might be,

Adobe Camera Raw, how you get the images into Photoshop. It's a piece of
software that you may have heard of, rather useful for digital photography.

>I am sorry that I was so hard on you.

I think you're confusing me with someone else.

>Take it easy, shoot images with your $1500 camera,
>for which you paid so willingly $3300.

Let's see - $1500 is about 800 quid. If you think you can get an
interchangable lens system with 12 megapixels, a 19 frame RAW buffer, great
ergonomics, superb noise performance right up to 3200 ISO, the ability to
take a whole variety of superb old lenses (not just in EF mount) and use
them as they were intended, etc. etc. then good luck to you.

My wife and I have both a 5D and a 300D. 800 quid is what the 300D cost.
Pick them both up and it's immediately apparent what you pay for with the
5D, and that's before you look at a single output image.
 >> Stay informed about: Nikon....wake up! 

"Mark²" wrote:

>>> Furthermore, if a lens is giving you chromatic abberation, then fix
>>> it in ACR. Gosh, that was hard.
>>
>> ACR, you say? Well whatever ACR might be,

Adobe Camera RAW. Adobe's RAW converter. RSE may do it as well.

>> I am sorry that I was
>> so hard on you. Take it easy, shoot images with your $1500 camera,
>> for which you paid so willingly $3300. I will rather invest in
>> lenses, and for flight tickets to be brought to places where I
>> would like to shoot.
>>
>> But, this is also a matter of free choice, isn't it?
>> Who am I to doubt your new toy.
>
> A thinly veiled slam from a guy who has inexplicably decided to be an ass.
> I don't get it.
> Why?

He doesn't give a damn about image quality. If he wants to shoot with a 6MP
noise box (and the Nikon 6MP cameras are noise boxes by comparison) that's
his loss.

Still, US$3300 is a lot of money, and although I have the cash on hand, my
chintzy half is, so far, remaining in control...

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
 >> Stay informed about: Nikon....wake up! 

In article ,
David J. Littleboy wrote:
>
>Still, US$3300 is a lot of money, and although I have the cash on hand, my
>chintzy half is, so far, remaining in control...

How long did you remain in control over the Mamiya 7? About two weeks,
wasn't it? You will be assimilated.
 >> Stay informed about: Nikon....wake up!