[haibane]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Harry Tuttle /img/forum/go_quote.gif Let's piss off the Canon fanboys. Nikon is better at everything film than Canon ever was, Canon was a joke before digital. Nikon is better at lenses and has A LOT more choices, you can pickup an old Nikkor lens and use it on your Nikon digital slr. Nikon cameras are less expensive and have better warranties. Canon does make better digital compact cameras though I'll give you that, but who cares about those toys anyway?

Since digital is all that matters now days most of your arguement is shot. Nikon Makes Less expensive cameras but if you match each up with its equivalent you see canon is just as cheap they just don't make a d40(pos) camera. Canon makes much cheaper lenses and is the only one with FF semi pro and the reason I switched. I am not going to pay 7k for a FF body just to use nikon gear. Nikon has a better CLS system is something that you should be arguing. I personally don't care cause I never used CLS I shot manual

 

[niko-time]

I do love hate.

It really brings people together.

EDIT: Side note, camera arrives tomorrow "before 1pm" and I have a free afternoon from school. Happy days

 

[Harry Tuttle]

^have fun

 

[Harry Tuttle]

Quote:

Originally Posted by haibane /img/forum/go_quote.gif Since digital is all that matters now days most of your arguement is shot. Nikon Makes Less expensive cameras but if you match each up with its equivalent you see canon is just as cheap they just don't make a d40(pos) camera. Canon makes much cheaper lenses and is the only one with FF semi pro and the reason I switched. I am not going to pay 7k for a FF body just to use nikon gear. Nikon has a better CLS system is something that you should be arguing. I personally don't care cause I never used CLS I shot manual

I was mainly kidding, some comments startled my sarcasm. I've tried the 20d (barely) and it kicked ass, moreso than the d100 which was much more expensive if I'm not mistaken. Also I sold my old Nikon fe because I was tired of carrying it, I'm stucked with an Olympus Stylus Epic for now but if I had the money I'd get a Nikon 35ti or some rangefinder. So yeah I don't totally hate compact cameras either.

 

[jmmtn4aj]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Harry Tuttle /img/forum/go_quote.gif Let's piss off the Canon fanboys. Nikon is better at everything film than Canon ever was, Canon was a joke before digital. Nikon is better at lenses and has A LOT more choices, you can pickup an old Nikkor lens and use it on your Nikon digital slr. Nikon cameras are less expensive and have better warranties. Canon does make better digital compact cameras though I'll give you that, but who cares about those toys anyway?

Many Canon users agree that Nikon pro lenses are equal or better. But more choices? Come on. Go compare the EF-(S) against the DX/FX lens line up. Canon's pro end lenses are lower priced and they have way more lenses in between to fill the gap between kit and pro (70-200 f/4 IS for example)

EDIT: Oh

 

[martook]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arainach /img/forum/go_quote.gif Instead of mindless bashing, care to point out what you disagree with him on?

It's not mindless bashing, it's more like a well known fact really

, and I'm just trying to warn people from taking him seriously.


Also, I would rather not go back there again and sponsor him, I've read enough on that site to know he's a bit of a nutjob. Well, not really I suppose, but what most people dont't realise is that the site is a joke. See: About KenRockwell.com

I especially like these parts:

"I have the playful, immature and creative, trouble-making mind of a seven-year-old, so read accordingly."

"While occasionally inspired by actual products or experiences, this site is entirely a work of fiction. It's a joke! Any resemblance to any actual people, places, products or anything is purely coincidental. This site is private and provided only for the entertainment of my personal friends and myself."

"I only update things as I discover errors. I offer no warrantees of any kind, except that there are many deliberate gaffes, practical jokes and downright foolish and made-up things lurking. While this site is mostly accurate, it is neither legally binding nor guaranteed and the only thing I do guarantee is that there is plenty of stuff I simply make up out of thin air, as does The Onion."



The thing is that most people that knows a bit about photography (and all I'm claiming here is that I know a bit about it, not that I'm any good at it, which is another matter altogether!

) knows that he's pretty full of it. The people that don't know that are the beginners that visits his site and thinks they are learning something good, when they in fact learn something that is... not.
Some examples of this that I can come up with from memory is: Shooting JPG instead of RAW, not using lens hoods and that image stabilization obsoletes tripods.


One pretty amusing blob of text from him is about why noone would ever want a full frame DSLR. See: CCD Sensor Sizes

He has of course updated it now, but if you don't read the background (first on that page) which he added very late, you'll see that he bets that Nikon would never make a camera with an "oversized" sensor, since there are "numerous advantages to the standard DX 16 x 24 mm sized CCD, and none to the old 35 mm film size". Ok, that was a few years back, but still... his site is full of stuff like that, most of it not as obvious though, especially not for people that don't know so much yet.

If you search for Ken Rockwell on google, you'll find like a million hits, and a lot of them are from threads where people write less than charming things about him. For example, read through all of this thread and see what people say:
Ken Rockwell's masterful D2X cynicism (link): Nikon D3/D2/D1 Forum: Digital Photography Review



*sigh*
Now you made me write a really long blob about him which is sad really, couldn't you just take my word for it!?

 

[Gurra1980]

Quote:

Originally Posted by martook /img/forum/go_quote.gif Please stop linking to Ken Rockwell, he's the biggest joke in the photography world for his utter fanboyism and crappy reviews. When he said he would start reviewing Canon gear as well, Nikon fans laughed and said it was about time "we" got some of it as well. He writes complete rubbish, because he knows that it drives people to his site where he makes money from the ads. The best thing about him is that he inspired to this: Time to Think - Ken Rockwell Facts

I actually like Ken, the thing you have to think about when you read his reviews and articles is that he is very subjective and he say so him self. But if one reads with a critical eye he has a lot of good things to learn, especially for beginners and every gear-geek should read his articles How to Do Anything Photographic and why cameras don't matters. It's just so true what he writes about those things.

 

[Rock&Roll Ninja]

Slightly off track: I went to Wal*Mart tonight and imagine my surprise; they had Canon Rebel SLR and D-SLR on display! The old mega-mart has come a long way, even if they are very low-end SLRs. (I didn't think to look if they stocked film for the camera)

 

[dj_mocok]

Actually Ken's advice may be useful for mom&dad type of shooters, but if you are serious into photography, you'll be smart enough to realise that his views aren't always correct anyway.

What I don't like about him is his reviews and strong opinions on products he doesn't even have (or worse - doesn't even experience yet)

 

[ServinginEcuador]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmmtn4aj /img/forum/go_quote.gif Eh? Really? This is the first time I've seen anyone consider a Canon wide-angle prime or zoom to be better than the equivalent Nikon.. Even diehard Canon photographers have always complained about the WA lineup..

Nikon 12-24mm

Here's the actual quote from Ken Rockwell:
Quote:

Today Canon makes a 10 - 22 mm f/3.5-4.5 for Canon cameras. The Canon is the best lens in this range with much less distortion than the Nikon, but doesn't fit my Nikon cameras.

Quote:

This is a great lens. It's so great it makes me want to swap over to Canon from Nikon, because it's better than my favorite Nikon 12 - 24 mm lens. It's better because it has less distortion and costs less. I paid over $1,000 for my Nikon; this superior 10 - 22 sells for $700

 

[svoboda123]

Rockwell's reviews are targeted at more casual enthusiasts and just casual, I think. To argue Canon is better than Nikon or vice versa is just silly. There are unique features in either system that may trump for one user, but he/she must know those. Persoanlly, I strongly prefer Nikon ergonomics, and the 18-200 stays on my body 90%. There is no such lens, of equa quality, n the Canon line. Any non-pro who claims he needs Full Frame is a fool. Pros even do assignments with hte Ricoh GX-200 some times. It's really toy lust and ego that makes people claim they need such...

 

[vic1890]

Quote:

Originally Posted by svoboda123 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Rockwell's reviews are targeted at more casual enthusiasts and just casual, I think. To argue Canon is better than Nikon or vice versa is just silly. There are unique features in either system that may trump for one user, but he/she must know those. Persoanlly, I strongly prefer Nikon ergonomics, and the 18-200 stays on my body 90%. There is no such lens, of equa quality, n the Canon line. Any non-pro who claims he needs Full Frame is a fool. Pros even do assignments with hte Ricoh GX-200 some times. It's really toy lust and ego that makes people claim they need such...

A fool? - I hardly think so. And if it is, I believe it's EQUALLY foolish to imply that a Pro would need a FF.

FF and APS-C cameras are specific devices for specific purposes. FF has the advantage of lower noise reproduction, and the ability to actually use a lens at its actual focal length - something, impossible with APS-Cs. Ever tried shooting using a long telephoto on a APS-C without Image Stabilization ? - one among many reasons *** are often considered.

It's just strange, I find, how some find it in their ability and qualification to blindly label and call others as they wish. Sad really..

 

[Buggs]

Quote:

Originally Posted by niko-time /img/forum/go_quote.gif ...and hopefully my last. Well, I've found out that I do not need the best of everything, and am enjoying it. I'm perfectly happy with my custom DR150 being the last (in the foreseeable future, anyhow) headphone I buy. Now I want to move on an "average" SLR camera. Due to being 16, I have other things to buy and my job goes 100% into my hobbies = no bills expect for the GF. I'm not hugely sure of what budget I need to enter this hobby. I've been reading some threads (well, the past 5 pages of the gear-fi section) and saw no threads considered both Nikon and Canon (I'm sure there are other brands as well) so decided to make my own. Regarding which camera I want. I don't care about size really. I don't want it to be too outlandishly priced and doubt I will want to upgrade it after I buy it. I'm happy waiting some time but I do get fairly impatient. What are my options? I love buying used, so I can save money there. What would you headphoney folk recommend for my camera needs? Cheers

You can pick up a D50 off Craigslist for $250 (body only) with less than 2500 snaps + an 18-70 lens for ~$100. If you want a prime, the AF 50mm is less than $90. Pick up an SB400 for $75 and you have everything you need for <$600.

All AF lenses work on a D50 and it is the low light champ not counting the D700. 6MP but with a killer sensor. ISO 800 is very usable. Don't bother with the D40, 40x or D60.

 

[Eagle_Driver]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buggs /img/forum/go_quote.gif You can pick up a D50 off Craigslist for $250 (body only) with less than 2500 snaps + an 18-70 lens for ~$100. If you want a prime, the AF 50mm is less than $90. Pick up an SB400 for $75 and you have everything you need for <$600. All AF lenses work on a D50 and it is the low light champ not counting the D700. 6MP but with a killer sensor. ISO 800 is very usable. Don't bother with the D40, 40x or D60.

If someone does get the D50, he or she should be aware that the maximum memory card size that camera will accept is only 2GB - a size which might be going the way of the you-know-what by the end of next year (with the smallest-capacity cards available in most local stores being too large for the camera to support and requiring SDHC support in the camera just to even use them). And Nikon has never (thus far) released new firmware versions for that camera which might have supported SDHC cards (in fact, the D50's firmware is still on its very first release, which predated the advent of SDHC cards).

As for the D40/D40x/D60 series, that series of cameras have a wacky light meter which almost always makes the camera's exposure system overexpose the images - to the point of whites and light colors being nearly washed out. And the D50 - at least the one I have - also overexposes images when I rely on its internal light meter. (This is the fault of the particular implementation of the multisegmented light metering system that these cameras, along with the D80, use - and those overexposure flaws become especially apparent when set to the Matrix mode.)

 

[Eagle_Driver]

Buggs,

Did you realize that this thread is more than a year old? (In fact, the original post, which you replied to, was made over one year ago.)

By the way, I re-read this entire thread, and discovered that the OP had already gotten the D40 with the 18-55 and 55-200 lenses.