Mochel Fortier wrote in the last digest, a bunch of stuff about Canon
being ahead. Replies in text. Actually, I am a bit annoyed that I don't
have more AF lenses to choose from, but other things outweigh this, like
a massive range of MF lenses. But this post really got me worked up...
further in text.
___________________
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 00:03:48 EST
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Why dump Nikon now?? [v04.n267/14]
Message: 14
> I should probably introduce myself first before opening pandora's box.
You said it...
> They had given me several F4's to shoot with which I found completely
inadequate in many ways especially coming from EOS 1n's with nothing BUT
ultrasonic lenses.
So, exactly what was the difference, other than the focusing speed? I
mean, you obviously referring to the USM lenses for a reason... and if
you haven't noticed, the F4 was actually quite a performer AF wise back
in 1988 when it was released. And, Nikon's amateur body, the N90s,
focuses faster than it too... so, no one said the F4 was lightning in
AF. Your prized EOS1n has been beaten out by the EOS3, too. Ooops. Maybe
I wasn't supposed to have burst that "1n best camera in the world"
bubble which you so obviously hold to.
> We were allowed to play with them for around a week and
while I liked the way the cameras handled better than the F4's, IMHO
they
still weren't as "functional" as the EOS stuff.
Someone's gotta define functional. My FM2 is functional. Heck, my FT2 is
still functional with today's lenses. Erm, how about those FD lenses?
> One important thing for me is the full time manual focus
afforded by the ultrasonic motors in the Canon lenses. I asked if Nikon
was
planning to update other lenses with the silent wave motor and he saind
no,
probably not as the only reason to have one is to push a large piece of
glass.
This troubled me to say the least.
I agree. He forgot the other reason... to drive prices up. BTW, Nikon
reps aren't exactly the most reliable sources in the world either.
FTM... with a manual focus lens... why doesn't that sound too bad to me
at all?
> While using the gear, there were many
things that I felt Nikon had done JUST to be different from the way
Canon's
operated. Instead of choosing to do things in a more simple way that
may
emmulate Canon, they've stuck to tradition.
Really? Actually, Nikon doesn't do things differently from Canon, since
according to you they've been sticking to tradition. Obviously then it's
Canon who's been changing and being different. So it's Canon that's
doing things JUST to be different... sound familiar... let's not lambast
into one of these my favourite system is the best, and every other
manufacturer revolves around it. Nikon didn't change. If anyone did, it
was Canon. I'm not saying change is not a good thing, but I'm just
saying your argument above seems highly, erm, untrustworthy to say the
least.
> Case in point, two rewind buttons instead of one.
Sounds good to me. I can rewind with two buttons the same time it takes
me to rewind with one. Ever run a frame off accidentally because you
pressed the shutter release? Things happen when you have only one
release. Nikon intends 2 rewind buttons as a safety feature, and so far
you're the first person I've seen complain. BTW, I think the buttons on
the F5 are extremely well placed.
> No custom function to leave the leader out.
I was discussing this with a few photogs the other day. We all decided
we'd actually rather have it all the way in. When you don't have time to
fiddle around with marking exposed film and the like, having the leader
in is the best way I know of of making sure you don't expose a roll
twice.
I
> personally think if Nikon doesn't do something quickly, they'll be relegated
to second place indefinitely.
Right. That's your personal opinion. But why, may I ask, indefinitely?
Canon was much further behind Nikon a few decades ago, but according to
you Canon have smashed Nikon to the ground. Even given your premise,
wouldn't Nikon still have some hope in the future? A bit much to condemn
them indefinitely isn't it?
> I wanted to
state that although the Nikon F5 and F100 are certainly competent
cameras,
Nikon still has a ways to go. Sure the 8fps autofocus is impressive but
not
much else is.
Right. I'm sure. And the fast AF of Canon is impressive, but nothing
much else is. A bit dismissive today, aren't we?
> The new EOS 3 matches the Nikon in autofocus rate using regular
batteries,
I am sure. Excuse me, but isn't it somewhere close to 3 or 4 fps without
a fancy booster? Regular batteries... maybe you were talking about the
N50?
> has a real off camera remote flash system,
Oh, yes. I'll give this one to Minolta, but to say Canon beats Nikon?
Sure. And how about on camera flash? Conveniently forgotten. I'm a firm
believer that this is one area Nikon definitely has the edge.
> a larger autofocus area,
is more ergonomic, and costs less than the F100 to boot.
Sigh. Three ridiculous claims. A larger AF area. Nikon claims the
F5/F100 still has that. At f5.6 the EOS3 only has 1 cross sensor. To
begin with, your much vaunted EOS1n, since I believe that's what you
shot with since the EOS3 was only just released, only has 1 cross sensor
regardless. The F5 and F100 have 3, which function at apertures f5.6 and
faster. A lot of stories to tell, rather than just making stabbing
claims.
The EOS 3 is more ergonomic. Right. Ergonomics is a matter of opinion.
What fits someone doesn't fit another. The EOS3 may be better for you,
but I like the F100 better. Rules out your argument simply because
you're using personal bias to judge... excuse me let's try again.
Oh, the EOS 3 costs less than the F100. That's news to me. Again, this
all depends on where you shop. There are places where the F100 costs
less than the EOS 3. Another point down the drain... sheesh. Oh, the
EOS3 costs more than the 1n too... in some places.
> I do enjoy using the
F5 and the 80-200 is great if not a little too large. Why dump Nikon?
Because you'll have to wait ten years before they've really begun to
catch up
to the range of lenses in AFS that Canon offers TODAY.
Groan. AF-S isn't everything. Nikon has sufficient AF-S glass IMO, while
Canon has excessive. I mean, how many lenses do you intend to own?!? And
keep waiting while Canon plays catch up to the 1005 pixel RGB meter,
self-diagnosing shutter, interchangeable viewfinders, 30 000 image
database, software compatibility, imprinting data between frames... and
Nikon plays catch up with AF-S/USM and IS. That's it, keep waiting while
I shoot photographs with my... believe it or not!... non-obsolete manual
focus camera. You see, Canon doesn't mimic Nikon, and Nikon doesn't
mimic Canon. They do different things.
> Imagine where Canon
will be 10 years from now. Everything from my 17-35, to my 50, to my
400 were
ultrasonic. Everything.
Which, going by Nikon conversions on the 28-70 and 80-200, also doubled
your costs. Canon could be bankrupt 10 years from now. Hey, you did ask
me to imagine!
> It's a big advantage especially for
photojournalists. Canon offers a 24/1.4, 28.1.8, 85/1.2, 135/2,
200/1.8,
etc...all with ultrasonic lenses.
And Nikon offers a 28/1.4, 6/2.8, 8/2.8, 300/2... but not AF-S. But they
still exist. This is a ridiculous never-ending argument!
> Even their lower cost lenses feature the
ultrasonic motors. Not to mention image stabilization and other various
features that actually benefit the photographer and don't just cling to
tradition.
We had a discussion on IS here... and the general conclusion is, big
deal. I know it certainly won't help my style of photography, but it may
yours. If it does, go buy Canon and leave us alone. Oh, by the way,
Canon's just announced that they'll be changing their lens mount again
sometime at the end of the century, just for the heck of it. Change is
good, and they don't want to be traditional. The EF mount is going to be
summarily abandoned. You might want to consider that, too.
> As I'll be shooting Nikon for the foreseeable future, I sincerely
hope they get serious about creating a camera for today's photographer,
not
yesterdays.
So, what? All of us shooting Nikon are yesterday's photographers? This I
really dig. That's cool. I'll live with yesterday's images, too.
Sorry if all that sounded annoyed... believe you me I was.
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"
