[voodoo]

Originally Posted by MacosNerd 

So your (everyone else) is saying the lenses on sony cameras, that are Zeiss are better then Nikon. That's just too mixed up. I'm sorry but you guys keep drinking the cool aid.

I'll keep shooting with my Nikon and Nikon glass.

Zeiss are better than Nikkor. This is indisputed. Sony has a better selection of Zeiss lenses than Nikon, but Zeiss makes lenses for both bodies. As well as Contax, Hasselblad and other professional bodies.

Calling lenses 'glass' is really pretentious. Maybe you would better fit in the cool-aid crowd at the Nikonians forum.

PS: I own a D80 and am very happy with it. Nikon makes fine cameras and fine lenses, but their lenses are no Zeiss lenses.

V

[design219]

Originally Posted by Twilly Spree 

We're not talking about point-and-shoot cameras. We're talking about SLR. Everything you claimed is irrelevant.

But hey. Don't let facts and reality stop you!

Wow, ok, so Sony now makes an SLR. Big whoop. I'm sure it's a fine camera.

Facts: They have 19 lenses under the Sony "Alpha" brand. Most are Minolta, three of them are Carl Zeiss. The Zeiss lenses are made in Japan. I stand by my previous post.

Now, you don't have to be a jerk, let's talk about the new Nikons if you like.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by design219 

Wow, ok, so Sony now makes an SLR. Big whoop. I'm sure it's a fine camera.

Facts: They have 19 lenses under the Sony "Alpha" brand. Most are Minolta, three of them are Carl Zeiss. The Zeiss lenses are made in Japan. I stand by my previous post.

Now, you don't have to be a jerk, let's talk about the new Nikons if you like.

ZEISS lenses for Sony digital cameras are developed by lens designers at the Carl Zeiss plant in Oberkochen, Germany. This includes all required quality assurance measures (test methods, test criteria, test devices, test procedures, lens performance target values, etc.) The lenses are then made in a lens production facility jointly chosen by Sony and Carl Zeiss. Quality assurance specialists from the Carl Zeiss plant in Oberkochen implement the ZEISS quality assurance system in the chosen facility. Many ZEISS optic measuring systems are installed. Carl Zeiss audits the lens production areas on a regular basis.

All these measures ensure that ZEISS lenses in Sony digital cameras meet the expectations demanding users associate with ZEISS lenses.

V

[design219]

Good research Voodoo.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Twilly Spree 

Railroader you're the king of saying nothing worthwhile and insulting people. Look who's talking babe. And by babe I mean thin-skinned photo amateur.

Now go back and play with your SLR and pretend you know something about photography and cameras!

Thanks for fitting into my stereo-type I shared earlier.

I'd reply more, but I have to get some equipment ready for a shoot tomorrow.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

Thanks for fitting into my stereo-type I shared earlier.

I'd reply more, but I have to get some equipment ready for a shoot tomorrow.

He may have fitted your stereo-type, but he nailed your personality down to a t.

Have fun photographing tomorrow!

On topic, the D3 is the only new Nikon worth noting, because it is a full-frame DSLR. In other words, don't buy DX lenses.

V

[Veltliner]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

As I said, Zeiss make better lenses. Everyone agrees on that, because you know, it's a fact.

I'd rather buy a Nikon than Sony body, but to claim Nikon has access to better 'glass' than Sony is absurd.

Contax uses Zeiss lenses a well. Nikon could, if they were so inclined.

Zeiss makes the best lenses in the world and are quite famous for it. Nikon is a prosumer brand, fine as such - but not in the same ballpark as Zeiss.

Sorry, people who know photography know this. There is no single element more important in a camera than the lens.

Zeiss makes better lenses than Nikon.

Why don't you read posts before you comment on them?

I didn't post the Zeiss review link to say "Zeiss makes superior lenses". Everybody knows that.

I posted the link to show that Nikon lenses aren't exactly "lesser" lenses.

Every real photographer knows that and Nikon and Canon lenses are what professional photographers rather use than Zeiss, which are too expensive for barely noticeable improvement, and doesn't even put an autofocus on the lens I posted the link about. True photographers buy their equipment in regard of use, not of test charts.

What do you shoot? Test charts? Do you count the lines of resolution a Zeiss lens can give you, and then get high on the number?

To call Nikon a prosumer brand shows, that you have no idea about photography, nor about photographic equipment. Nikon was the absolute leader in 35mm cameras, and its D2x was a highly respected, top-notch professional camera.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Veltliner 

Why don't you read posts before you comment on them?

I didn't post the Zeiss review link to say "Zeiss makes superior lenses". Everybody knows that.

Not everybody, the OP thought (thinks?) that Nikkors are 'better glass' than Zeiss.

To call Nikon a prosumer brand shows, that you have no idea about photography, nor about photographic equipment. Nikon was the absolute leader in 35mm cameras, and its D2x was a highly respected, top-notch professional camera.

35mm cameras are prosumer cameras. Medium format (something Nikon doesn't make) are professional cameras. Nikon is a prosumer brand. Leica is a professional brand.

Unless you're going to compare Leicas with Nikons as equals

V

[design219]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

35mm cameras are prosumer cameras. Medium format (something Nikon doesn't make) are professional cameras. Nikon is a prosumer brand. Leica is a professional brand.

Unless you're going to compare Leicas with Nikons as equals

Leica is a 35mm camera.

To say medium format is professional and 35mm is not is to be really out of the loop. They are different tools, and the use is dependent upon their user.

I am a professional photographer and I dumped my medium format equipment for digital slr's because of workflow.

[design219]

Originally Posted by Veltliner 

Every real photographer knows that and Nikon and Canon lenses are what professional photographers rather use than Zeiss, which are too expensive for barely noticeable improvement, and doesn't even put an autofocus on the lens I posted the link about. True photographers buy their equipment in regard of use, not of test charts.

Well said.

Nikon and Canon make professional systems with an extreme range of tools.

[ThinkInsane]

Everyone take a deep breath and relax a bit. People are getting a little too testy in here. It's nice night, there's a big full moon (and if I'm not mistaken there's an eclipse tonight), so take what ever glass you have and go outside and shoot. You'll feel better. That's what I'm going to do with my inferior or superior, whichever, Sony camera with Zeiss and Minolta lenses. Works well enough for me!

[Veltliner]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

Not everybody, the OP thought (thinks?) that Nikkors are 'better glass' than Zeiss.



35mm cameras are prosumer cameras. Medium format (something Nikon doesn't make) are professional cameras. Nikon is a prosumer brand. Leica is a professional brand.

Unless you're going to compare Leicas with Nikons as equals

V

I wonder where you get your absurd theories from.

You don't seem to be a photographer at all. You have the typical attitude of someone, who doesn't have the knowledge, and tries too hard to convince others that he has it.

Well, you didn't convince me.

Just keep on dabbling and babbling...

The thread's dead anyway. Time for the big padlock.

[Veltliner]

Originally Posted by design219 

Leica is a 35mm camera.

To say medium format is professional and 35mm is not is to be really out of the loop. They are different tools, and the use is dependent upon their user.

I am a professional photographer and I dumped my medium format equipment for digital slr's because of workflow.

Exactly.

What a relief.

[Veltliner]

Originally Posted by ThinkInsane 

there's a big full moon

Thanks for the warning.

[design219]

Originally Posted by ThinkInsane 

there's a big full moon

Originally Posted by Veltliner 

Thanks for the warning.

[Goldfinger]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

Not everybody, the OP thought (thinks?) that Nikkors are 'better glass' than Zeiss.



35mm cameras are prosumer cameras. Medium format (something Nikon doesn't make) are professional cameras. Nikon is a prosumer brand. Leica is a professional brand.

Unless you're going to compare Leicas with Nikons as equals

V

I don't know too many pro's who shoot medium format or Leica anymore and nor will I when I go pro in a few years from now.

I'll go further and even say that, to me, Nikons are superior to Leicas because I can realise much better pictures with the Nikon system. I don't like rangefinders and the R-system is really overpriced. It's great for rich amateurs, but not for someone that's trying to make a living out of it (unless you're already very succesfull in the business).
And Leica is as 35mm as it gets . Hell the M8 is a crop camera

Calling Nikon is prosumor brand is just whack. Sure they have consumer and prosumer cameras and lenses but they sure as hell have great pro equipment.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by design219 

Leica is a 35mm camera.

The ignorance is palpable.

Leica is a brand. Like Pentax and Nikon.

Leica made prosumer 35mm cameras, but their specialty was always the PROFESSIONAL medium format bodies.

Now, like 99% of camera makers, they make digital cameras - except for one 35mm convertable body.

To say medium format is professional and 35mm is not is to be really out of the loop. They are different tools, and the use is dependent upon their user.

Not really, one is professional and the other isn't so much. Tell the class, why would anyone want a medium format film over 35mm.

I am a professional photographer and I dumped my medium format equipment for digital slr's because of workflow.

A digital SLR is all a wedding photographer needs. That's not professional photography. That's just hack.

Digital SLR is nice and all, but you can't get 1/15th of the resolution of a 35mm Kodachrome on one. Let alone medium format.

V

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Veltliner 

I wonder where you get your absurd theories from.

You don't seem to be a photographer at all. You have the typical attitude of someone, who doesn't have the knowledge, and tries too hard to convince others that he has it.

Well, you didn't convince me.

Just keep on dabbling and babbling...

The thread's dead anyway. Time for the big padlock.

I'm not here to convince you. It's always mememe with you people.

I'm just smacking you down with truth.

A few wannabe camera-dads and wedding photographers who love their wittle wittle Nikon as it is the beginning and end of all cameras are always a pleasure to smack down.

Nikon is a good brand, but Canon is way more popular. For every one Nikon sold, 3 Canon cameras are sold.

It attracts apologists like crazy. Much like Apple does. Annoying people. Nerds who thing their brand and their lifestyle defines them.

V

[design219]

This is too mind boggling to respond to.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Goldfinger 

I don't know too many pro's who shoot medium format or Leica anymore and nor will I when I go pro in a few years from now.

OK, how anecdotal of you. I know many pros who stick to medium format, moved to digital-backs on their Hasselblads. Naturally.

I'll go further and even say that, to me, Nikons are superior to Leicas because I can realise much better pictures with the Nikon system.

I can make better photos with a Leica than Nikon. Way better..

I don't like rangefinders and the R-system is really overpriced. It's great for rich amateurs, but not for someone that's trying to make a living out of it (unless you're already very succesfull in the business).
And Leica is as 35mm as it gets . Hell the M8 is a crop camera

I don't use rangefinders either, they take a lot to get used to. Some swear by them, though. It's a preferance, but Leica makes more than just rangefinders..

Calling Nikon is prosumor brand is just whack. Sure they have consumer and prosumer cameras and lenses but they sure as hell have great pro equipment.

Nikon doesn't have any professional cameras. 35mm cameras, no matter how much you build into the body, how many light sensors and gadgets are never professional. No more than the iMac is professional.

I'm sure you can do many things on an iMac for work, but when push comes to shove, you're going to need the MacPro. It's way more expensive, but there is a good reason for it and prosumers never get this -- because they've never needed it.

They've NEVER reached the practical boundaries of 35mm bodies. In their world, the 35mm is just fine. And 12MPix are just great.

Note the max resolution of a 35mm Kodachrome for instance. Close to 200Mpix. Not mentioning medium format resolution. It is a new world. One you may try if you ever become professional.

V

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by design219 

This is too mind boggling to respond to.

SMACKDOWN!!

V

[design219]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

The ignorance is palpable. V

Yes, it is.


I think I found your Leica medium format.


The Leica-H

It's only $14.95! Is this what you shoot with? I can see why you like this camera, it has an "optical lens!" Can you put a digital back on it, because the add doesn't say?

[design219]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

I can make better photos with a Leica than Nikon. Way better..
V

It is sad when you have to credit the tool instead of the craftsman. I'd love to see what you get from the sidelines of a pro football game with your medium format Leica.

[Goldfinger]

Wow.

Voodoo, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

[Veltliner]

Originally Posted by design219 

I think I found your Leica medium format.


The Leica-H

It's only $14.95! Is this what you shoot with? I can see why you like this camera, it has an "optical lens!" Can you put a digital back on it, because the add doesn't say?

You go the right camera for voodoo, design 219.

But you'd better explain him how to use it. That he has to hold the camera viewfinder to his eye, not the lens. And to take the lens cap off before shooting.

Or he'll never get it right.

I'm sure he's googling like crazy right now, thinking (if that's the word) he can really fool someone with bits and pieces pulled off the web.

[design219]

I've tried to be nice, but this guy is being a jerk about things he knows nothing about. I wish he or she could discuss without having to insult people who hold opinions (or facts) that differ from theirs. If I was a mod, I would jump on him for his snide insults alone.

[Demonhood]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

35mm cameras, no matter how much you build into the body, how many light sensors and gadgets are never professional.

i'll be sure to tell that to every sports photographer that has ever existed.

anyway, let's try to keep this topic civil. or, if necessary, start a new thread for "lens bickering".

[fhoubi]

[QUOTE=voodoo;3467256]
Nikon is a good brand, but Canon is way more popular. For every one Nikon sold, 3 Canon cameras are sold

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PROD...slrmonthly.jpg

O boy for DSLR this hurts Canon like hell

[glideslope]

Originally Posted by Spook E 

How about Nikon v Sony ?

The sensor in the D300 is the same as the one in the upcoming Sony Alpha, so it'll be interesting to see what is different between the two.

I've just bought an Alpha 100, and am pretty happy with it, other than Sony's typical bulls**t overpricing for accesories (they want me to pay 99AUD for a remote trigger thing, $13 for a generic brand on ebay thankyou very much!

The difference is in the new Nikon Processing engine/pipeline. IMO, high ISO in the D300 will equal the D40. The D3 will amaze people. Only shooters that sit under trees for hours waiting for mother eagle to return will have an issue with 12mp. They will be happy with the 24mp FX format D3X in the spring.

[glideslope]

Originally Posted by Goldfinger 

Wow.

Voodoo, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

That's been a known for a while.

[glideslope]

Originally Posted by design219 

I've shoot Nikon for over 28 years, and I'm interested, but not overly excited by these new bodies. I have a D200 and was expecting a larger gain in megapixels for the next camera. (16-20 was what I was expecting)

Full frame is great, but I wish they did that a few years ago. I now have a 12-24 Dx Nikkor that will not cover it. Fortunately I still have my 20-35 f2.8 Nikkor.

Spring 08. D3X. FX format 24mp. Many prototypes out in the field for a while now.

[glideslope]

Originally Posted by tie 

I disagree. What counts is the light per pixel. If you have the same number of pixels on a larger sensor, then the individual pixels will be larger. With the same lens, you'll get more light per pixel. Even if the larger sensor also has more pixels, then provided you are printing the image at the same size, ultimately the print from the larger sensor will have less noise.

This advantage in light-gathering ability comes at a cost. You'll have less DOF at the same aperture with the same lens. If you are shooting, e.g., macro, and want high DOF, then you'll need to stop down the lens more on the camera with the larger sensor. Even still, I think if you work out the math, even with the DOFs being the same, the larger sensor comes out ahead.

As more evidence for my argument, the D3 now shoots at ISO speeds up to 25,600. I think the highest ISO on previous Nikon DSLRs was 3200.

Bingo. Just wait till you see the D3 images.

[design219]

Originally Posted by glideslope 

... the 24mp FX format D3X in the spring.

Are you joking? If there is a 24 mp Nikon in the works and you have info ... TELL TELL TELL PLEEEEEEZ

[Stegabot]

Originally Posted by design219 

Are you joking? If there is a 24 mp Nikon in the works and you have info ... TELL TELL TELL PLEEEEEEZ

I can't wait to see the price of that monster . Honestly , I'll get the 12 MP D3 around summer of 2008 after I buy the 70-200 mm/2.8 Nikkor lens . I have to wait for the reviews of the D3 before paying cash for the thing .

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by design219 

It is sad when you have to credit the tool instead of the craftsman. I'd love to see what you get from the sidelines of a pro football game with your medium format Leica.

Haha, you are not the sharpest knife in the drawer. I make damn fine photos, but I can make better photos with Leica than Nikon.

Any of that making it through yous skull?

V

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Goldfinger 

Wow.

Voodoo, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

Wow, you really told me.

Now here's some constructive criticism: Don't quit your dayjob for photography. I've seen your work. It's pretty bad on a good day.

V

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Demonhood 

i'll be sure to tell that to every sports photographer that has ever existed.

anyway, let's try to keep this topic civil. or, if necessary, start a new thread for "lens bickering".

Be sure to do that. You have a point? I'm sure it isn't that every sports photographer that has ever existed used 35mm film?

Because that would be shooting yourself in the foot. You wouldn't do that.


V

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by glideslope 

That's been a known for a while.

Glideslope, you are a person one laughs at, not with. Thank you for that.

V

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by design219 

I've tried to be nice, but this guy is being a jerk about things he knows nothing about. I wish he or she could discuss without having to insult people who hold opinions (or facts) that differ from theirs. If I was a mod, I would jump on him for his snide insults alone.

Mmm well, it's not personal - I'm just stating a fact. The Nikonians here claimed that Nikkor lenses were in some way (any way, I'll take any way) superior to Zeiss.

When you start out like that, you have already displayed that you know nothing. When you jump in to defend this, you show you are just an amateur who has no knowledge what-so-ever about cameras in general.

You haven't tried to be nice. You've only tried to be a twit. Puking out some worthless claims. That's all.

V

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by design219 

Are you joking? If there is a 24 mp Nikon in the works and you have info ... TELL TELL TELL PLEEEEEEZ

Here's some free advice: Glideslope has a vivid imagination. I'm not saying he's purpously lying, just that he can't tell the truth between his fantasy and reality.

V

[Arty50]

Originally Posted by Demonhood 

i'll be sure to tell that to every sports photographer that has ever existed.

anyway, let's try to keep this topic civil. or, if necessary, start a new thread for "lens bickering".

I know several professional ski photographers. These are people who have had multiple shots posted in every major ski magazine, including cover shots. They make their living shooting skiing and other sports to make ends meet during the summer. They get up super early in the morning, hike up a mountain for hours, and take equal care in setting up. It's not a job that pays well, but they get by. And they do it not only for the love of the sport, but also for the love of their craft. And almost all of them use 35mm film and/or D-SLRs.

To call these people prosumers is a massive insult. They are artists at their craft and spend untold hours working at it. All for that one shot that might make it in a magazine or might end up on someone's wall.

Voodoo, you sir are an idiot. I am dumber for having read your blathering, and the rest of the world is dumber for the mere fact that you are in it.

[design219]

VooDoo:

The whole thing you are debating is silly. As I said before, there are 19 lenses made for the Sony slr under the Sony "Alpha" brand. Three of them are made with the Zeiss name under license from Zeiss.

THE REST ARE MINOLTA LENSES. Three out of 19 do not make a lens system.

I'm sure the three Zeiss lenses are very, very good ... they are expensive enough. The Minolta lenses are probably alright too.


Now chill out. Your snide remarks* are not helpful to this discussion. If your feelings are hurt by comments someone made about your camera system, get over it, it is just a discussion board.

Finally, you don't lend yourself any credibility with the medium format Leica comments. Anyone with a real knowledge of photography knows Leica invented the 35mm camera, and does NOT make medium format cameras.

*(See how I refrained from calling you a stupid idiot.)

[ThinkInsane]

I don't see where this thread is going to get any better, so off it goes to where ever dead threads go.