Canon or Nikon?

[OrionsByte]

This is the thread that never ends
Yes it goes on and on my friends
Some people started posting without knowing what it was
and they'll just keep on posting here forever just because
This is the thread that never ends
Yes it goes on and on my friends...

:gah:

 

[SBShots]

This is the thread that never ends
Yes it goes on and on my friends
Some people started posting without knowing what it was
and they'll just keep on posting here forever just because
This is the thread that never ends
Yes it goes on and on my friends...

:gah:

So you're saying that Canon makes the better camera?

 

[Markw]

Canon.

Nikon.

:mrgreen:

Mark

 

[Petraio Prime]

Heh, I say it again for you.

When did they remove auto-focus capability again? Seriously, try again.

Who needs it?

Nice photo (save for the blown highlights taken in direct sun).

Please, enough with the "I'm better than you because I use a manual camera!" bit. We get it. You've pounded it into our brains, at least 100 times, literally. Why are you so scared of AF? Scared it will make you less of a photographer? Oh, there I go again, you aren't a photographer...I need to quit making that mistake. I'd say you're a Luddite, but you are online, so that can't be it. I guess technological advances past 1965 in the photographic world are bad.

As for me, I will admit that it sure is nice, and helps a lot to have a mechanical assist in focusing. I could do it myself, but what's the point when the machine can do it basically as well as a human being, except in a few rare circumstances (like you pointed out)?

I should have learned from the first time. I'm going to just stop replying to you. You're an old crotchety man, set in his ways, and the new fangled whosits and whatsits are just too darned complicated for you! I guess they really can't teach an old dog (or a not-a-photographer) new tricks.

Don't need new tricks. The photo was taken on Kodachrome 25, hand held, at the Toronto zoo, with the 560mm Telyt-R. The sun was intense, as is necessary with such a slow film. The highlights weren't 'blown'. There is extreme contrast in such a scene.

 

[cfusionpm]

Sorry Matt, but I addressed your "breakdown" quite thoroughly, in multiple posts. I gave you he last word. Isn't that enough for you? Why don;t you add something of actual *value* to this thread, liike I have done: I have listed specific system vs system characterisitics, some GOOD quaklities in favor of Canon, and even a reference to the Michael Reichmann comparison of Canon and Nikon cameras....but you have provided nothing of value,except trying to disparage me. Sorry Matt...but your argument is not much more than character disparagement.

You posted blatant inaccuracies and misinformation and I corrected you. If you somehow believe anything I said was untrue, I'll gladly sit here and be proven wrong. But usually you retort back with some long-winded, off-topic, thousand-word essay (kinda like you did here) which generally has little to do with whatever was being talked about, and will often boil down to more personal attacks. (Remember, I am attacking points and ideas, not any individual person. If you are somehow offended by this, that's not my problem). Now, I just assumed that your omission of a reply meant you conceded that you were wrong. I was content in knowing this, but it doesn't make forum life interesting that way.

If your "character" is described as one who manipulates information to mislead people into believing your opinion is fact, then yes, I suppose you could call it a mockery of such. All I was attempting to do was set some things straight. In case you haven't noticed, besides regular contradictions and poor argument structure, the only thing I really dog on you about is when you talk about high MP sensors; specifically regarding Canon and the 7D (and sometimes the 50D or 5DII).

You still haven't told me the last time you actually used a 7D. Have you ever? How can you possibly be taken seriously as some kind of authority on high MP sensors when you've never used them? I mean, feel free to chime in and say otherwise (or scoff about how you're too good to buy new bodies). Your however-many-years in businesses and film cameras you may have has absolutely no translation to the technical aspects of super-modern DSLRs. That's like saying an expert on vinyl or cassette tape recording is a also an expert in multi-channel HDR ProTools session recording.

Now I don't claim to be any kind of all-knowing expert. I just try and post things about the cameras I know; either correcting misinformation, or informing those who are asking questions (probably why you see me post in a lot of 50D and 7D threads... go figure, huh?). While I may not have been shooting for 37 years, I have been shooting quite a bit for the last five and my degree from UCSD* is in computer media. So I would like to think that I kind of know what I'm talking about... most of the time. :thumbup:

*Shameless name drop. Doesn't really add anything to the thread, just thought I'd show that I may actually know something about high end graphics work.

 

[o hey tyler]

 

[shaunly]

off topic here, but DAMN, that guy looks like he's gonna beat some ass!! LOL. I wonder if it's the photographer

 

[Overread35]

Canon.

Nikon.

:mrgreen:

Mark

SIGMA!!

Juza Nature Photography

And whilst we are at it that is the wrong canon
This is Canon!!

 

[Gaerek]

Don't need new tricks. The photo was taken on Kodachrome 25, hand held, at the Toronto zoo, with the 560mm Telyt-R. The sun was intense, as is necessary with such a slow film. The highlights weren't 'blown'. There is extreme contrast in such a scene.

And there it is, proof that PP really doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. You see kids, when the luminance of a pixel registers as 255, it is blown. It's ok in some circumstances for this to be the case. Specular highlights are one example. However, in this case, there are entire areas that are completely at 255 luminance, that shouldn't be, like on the top of the rhino's head. If he were wet, or it were a smooth texture, it might be forgivable. However, this wasn't the case. It was purely because you took a photo in bright, direct sunlight, and it looks like tripe.

Now, let's critique another area of the photo. You see, then I see animal shots, I love to see their eyes. Something is interesting about this shot, because the rhino's eye is completely in shadow. The luminance of most of that area is 0 (meaning no data) and detail is completely lost on the entirety of the eye. Nice job exposing for middle gray, but you missed the most important part of the animal. Of course, increasing exposure to get detail in the eye would only make the highlight problem worse.

If you weren't such a seasoned photographer (I'm going to call you what you are now, since you are a person who makes photographs), I'd tell you to go back to the zoo in better lighting. But I'm sure you knew that anyway. Instead of a nice shot of a rhino, we end up with a snapshot taken in a scene with WAY too much contrast, that looks like something my mother (not a photographer, never has been, and never will be, and doesn't really like cameras to begin with) would have taken.

But, I'm sure PP will reply, and do what he always does. Not really try to refute my argument, and try to lay down that red herring for me to follow, or maybe shift the goal posts a bit. But I won't bite. Have fun with your "photography."

 

[Overread35]

Don't need new tricks. The photo was taken on Kodachrome 25, hand held, at the Toronto zoo, with the 560mm Telyt-R. The sun was intense, as is necessary with such a slow film. The highlights weren't 'blown'. There is extreme contrast in such a scene.

And there it is, proof that PP really doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. You see kids, when the luminance of a pixel registers as 255, it is blown. It's ok in some circumstances for this to be the case. Specular highlights are one example. However, in this case, there are entire areas that are completely at 255 luminance, that shouldn't be, like on the top of the rhino's head. If he were wet, or it were a smooth texture, it might be forgivable. However, this wasn't the case. It was purely because you took a photo in bright, direct sunlight, and it looks like tripe.

Now, let's critique another area of the photo. You see, then I see animal shots, I love to see their eyes. Something is interesting about this shot, because the rhino's eye is completely in shadow. The luminance of most of that area is 0 (meaning no data) and detail is completely lost on the entirety of the eye. Nice job exposing for middle gray, but you missed the most important part of the animal. Of course, increasing exposure to get detail in the eye would only make the highlight problem worse.

If you weren't such a seasoned photographer (I'm going to call you what you are now, since you are a person who makes photographs), I'd tell you to go back to the zoo in better lighting. But I'm sure you knew that anyway. Instead of a nice shot of a rhino, we end up with a snapshot taken in a scene with WAY too much contrast, that looks like something my mother (not a photographer, never has been, and never will be, and doesn't really like cameras to begin with) would have taken.

But, I'm sure PP will reply, and do what he always does. Not really try to refute my argument, and try to lay down that red herring for me to follow, or maybe shift the goal posts a bit. But I won't bite. Have fun with your "photography."

just a small - little point here - but err Kodachrome 25 is erm that film stuff not digital - so whilst those highlights and darks would be pure white and pure black on digital there might be a slight bit more lattitude to claw back from a film capture (heck even looking at the photo fullsize its clear its a film scan not a digital shot).

Of course that adjustment would have to be made to the negative and strange darkroom rites performed to dodge and burn some of the details back into the shot and I've no idea how much real detail could still be pulled back from such a shot (baring in mind that such processes might already have been performed before this shot was scanned)

 

[Petraio Prime]

Don't need new tricks. The photo was taken on Kodachrome 25, hand held, at the Toronto zoo, with the 560mm Telyt-R. The sun was intense, as is necessary with such a slow film. The highlights weren't 'blown'. There is extreme contrast in such a scene.

And there it is, proof that PP really doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. You see kids, when the luminance of a pixel registers as 255, it is blown. It's ok in some circumstances for this to be the case. Specular highlights are one example. However, in this case, there are entire areas that are completely at 255 luminance, that shouldn't be, like on the top of the rhino's head. If he were wet, or it were a smooth texture, it might be forgivable. However, this wasn't the case. It was purely because you took a photo in bright, direct sunlight, and it looks like tripe.

Now, let's critique another area of the photo. You see, then I see animal shots, I love to see their eyes. Something is interesting about this shot, because the rhino's eye is completely in shadow. The luminance of most of that area is 0 (meaning no data) and detail is completely lost on the entirety of the eye. Nice job exposing for middle gray, but you missed the most important part of the animal. Of course, increasing exposure to get detail in the eye would only make the highlight problem worse.

If you weren't such a seasoned photographer (I'm going to call you what you are now, since you are a person who makes photographs), I'd tell you to go back to the zoo in better lighting. But I'm sure you knew that anyway. Instead of a nice shot of a rhino, we end up with a snapshot taken in a scene with WAY too much contrast, that looks like something my mother (not a photographer, never has been, and never will be, and doesn't really like cameras to begin with) would have taken.

But, I'm sure PP will reply, and do what he always does. Not really try to refute my argument, and try to lay down that red herring for me to follow, or maybe shift the goal posts a bit. But I won't bite. Have fun with your "photography."

It was shot on Kodachrome 25 and scanned. The scan can't hold as much detail as the slide. There is detail in the eye in the Kodachrome...but in a scan there no way to hold detail in everything in a scan under such circumstances. The slide is fantastic, with detail in the eye and lovely detail in the skin.

Are you always so rude and ignorant?

The Kodachrome is great. You could never do anything this good.

Digital sucks.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

Do they still make Kodachrome?

 

[rpm]

PP we have our mediums, you have yours, we can all move on...hell this whole debate was about Canon vs Nikon and you brought up a whole third party that wasn't asked to the table. im not criticizing when i say this but not many people even use the medium you refer to, im too young to even have dabbled in it and probably never will but this thread was about Canon and Nikon and you side tracked it a bit. lets all just move on...

seriously can this thread either go back to topic (intelligently) or please be closed? lol

 

[rpm]

Bitter, according to wiki, its been discontinued and the last set of slides were manufactured and sold. maybe there remains a few unsold but otherwise whatever is out there and unused, are simply the only stock available with no future.........forever...

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

What will he ever do?