Horror of horrors. I thought I'd survived, and then lo and behold it's
Mr Canon or nothing person again. Replies in text.
______________________
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 00:42:13 EST
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: canon zealots...the final chapter. [v04.n267/17]
Message: 17
>What technology does Nikon have that Canon doesn't have or didn't have first?
Try, erm, the SLR? Nikon wasn't the first in the market, but they were
there before Canon... try 6mm fisheyes, 1005 pixel colour matrix meters,
PC compatibility, imprinting data between frames, interchangeable
viewfinders, an AF SLR before Canon, a STANDARD LENS MOUNT. Sheesh.
> That's a pretty bold statement that many of the world's most renowned
photographers would disagree with, myself included (I'm not renowned
anywhere
yet :-)
Likewise, the other way around. Many people will back Nikon for doing
what they want to do. For you to slam Nikon unconditionally is a bit too
much, IMO. Thank goodness about the last bit too...
> I've been using Canon for 17 years and have yet to have one major breakdown.
Lucky you. I know people who've been using Nikon for longer without a
breakdown of ANY sort. And I know of some Nikon users who get things
defective out of the box, and that holds for Canon users too. I think we
need to stop generalising based on your personal opinion and experience
here...
> I recently switched to Nikon and the F4's I was using broke down all the time,
not to mention my new SB-26's all coming apart.
Likewise, see above.
> Canon may have only 1 manufacturing defect in maybe
70,000.
Oh, and I'm supposed to buy this argument? Where did you pluck the
number from? Even you use the word "may"... common man!
> Plastic is more resillient too.
There was a massive thread on rec.photo.equipment.35mm. No one seems to
agree, so let's not have you come in and state this like it was an
undeniable fact, ok?
> Notice the automobile trend away
from the large steel boats of the 70's to the plastic, carbon fiber,
composites of today. Are today's cars any less durable?
Yeah, but they're still made of metal, aren't they? Why aren't we
driving around in plastic cars? And a plastic mount. I mean, common?
> That's not really very scientific. Check out the sidelines at any major
sporting event. Count black lenses. Then count white. The entire
staff of
the Dallas Morning News switched to Canon in the early 90's.
Oh, right. And shooting sports is scientific? Man, the whole world is
stuck with white lenses in the day when they were the only in-lens motor
options around. Ask yourself why your paper is going Nikon? Massive
outlay doesn't get changed immediately, does it. You want scientific,
Chasseur tests, which I don't trust, but since you seem to be able to
fling nonsense stuff, let's fling some too... rated the F5 as being the
best, followed by the N90s, and then our holier-than-thou EOS3 with
booster, and last of the four was the all-too-great EOS1n with booster.
The Nikon's got EVERY shot in focus. Not so either Canon.
> Sounds to me like the "kids" that were
hired didn't know how to use the gear. An F4 isn't even a real
autofocus
camera. I can focus a long piece of glass like it's going out of
style. But
I still love autofocus.
Oh, I'm sure you do... the F4 is probably one of the nicest MF cameras
out there, and its AF stinks. That much I'll give you. What was Canon's
pro AF model before the 1n? Of wait, there wasn't one! At least there
was an F4 before the F5... Do you have to find fault and keep picking on
the F4 just because it's dated? The T90 doesn't even AF... that's your
kind of argument. And the only "kids" out there are people like you...
> Hmm...you could also say the same about Nikon who chooses to cling stubbornly
to outdated technologies and ideas.
Like I said, it's all a matter of approach. Nikon chose compatibility
and not to abandon their faithful shooters of the last half a century.
Canon, if I use your style of language, chooses to use each new camera
as a testing bed and each new consumer (pro or otherwise) as a guinea
pig to test new ideas... I'm just using your kind of outdated and
stubbornly language here...
> The F5 isn't the ergonomic equivalent of
ANY EOS camera that's ever been released.
Ergonomics again. I told you, it's a subjective thing. The EOS 500n
absolutely stinks in ergonomics IM OPINION. And don't mention a thing
about apples and oranges, cause you did say "ANY EOS camera that's ever
been released". Not too many mind.
> Not to mention their small line of
"S" lenses. I can get ultrasonic motors in just about every Canon lens.
It's
a big advantage and certainly not a gimic or marketing.
Like I said, if you're a techno junkie, can afford 10 000 lenses, and
each at double the cost, then go use Canon and leave us alone! How about
Contax and Leica? Aren't they the most backdated bunch of manufacturers
around? Why they don't even have AF (the AX aside) let alone AFS/USM
lenses. And just because Sigma has HSM lenses, doesn't mean a Minolta
user is going to switch to an SA-5, is he?
> Canon glass is
sharper as well.
Now, this takes the cake. It really does. I'm not saying Nikon is
better, but these kind of sweeping, absolute claims which are not
backed-up, just serves to ridicule this claim and throw doubt on
everything else you've said.
> Where's the harm in that? Toss the old mount. Get rid of
it.
Okay, then let's toss the EF mount then. What's the harm? Get rid of it.
Then introduce the SUCKER mount, and next week scrap that too and
introduce the ONE-BORN-EVERY-MINUTE mount. OBEM. Sounds nice doesn't it?
> Heck, most of the older lenses don't even work on the F5.
Excuse me? Most? You're joking aren't you? Even if your claim is true,
which it's not, at least SOME work, rather than Canon's NONE. At least
Minolta still supports its MF line. Canon just totally dumped it like a
hot potato.
> Consistency is of prime importance and it's
something Nikon lacks. While Canon has designed on AF 300/2.8, Nikon
has
designed three. I'd be frustrated if I had to purchase the gear myself.
LOL. This makes lotsa sense. Changing your whole mount is consistency?
Right, maybe you expect them to be consistent and do it again soon?
Canon's filled with IIs in their lens line-up, and there're a bunch of
re-dos of the 400/2.8s, in fact I think even the 300/2.8. So what if
Nikon has 3... you can buy two of them then, and have another in-lens
motor, the AF-I and AF-S, since you're so enamoured over having more of
them!
Jed
--
_______________________
An election is coming. Universal peace is declared, and the foxes have a
sincere interest in prolonging the lives of the poultry.
-- George Eliot, "Felix Holt"
