Excellent Canon vs Nikon Video - no bias.
Nov 10, 2014 07:01:05 #
Nov 10, 2014 07:16:02 #
magicray wrote:
Basically it's just another of his paid commercial advertizements.
Nov 10, 2014 07:59:57 #
Using both systems professionally I pretty much agree with everything he says.
Nov 10, 2014 08:06:05 #
kymarto wrote:
Using both systems professionally I pretty much agree with everything he says.
It's when he starts drawing conclusions, and wanders all across the board searching for them, that it becomes hilarious.
The whole bit about focus breathing with the 70-200mm is bogus. The lens facts are correct, but the significance is not what he says, and it does not rise to the level of a show stopper.
Granted he isn't as bad as Rockwell, but they both create controversy to get attention.
Nov 10, 2014 09:57:55 #
In my own experiences I found these assumptions to be true in general.
1) Nikon makes a better body.
2) Nikon makes a better sensor.
3) Canon makes better lenses and offers a wider selection.
I found his statements on the reduced megapixel with kit lenses interesting. I wasn't aware that an 18mp camera would only record 9mp of detail with a kit lens.
1) Nikon makes a better body.
2) Nikon makes a better sensor.
3) Canon makes better lenses and offers a wider selection.
I found his statements on the reduced megapixel with kit lenses interesting. I wasn't aware that an 18mp camera would only record 9mp of detail with a kit lens.
Nov 10, 2014 10:31:59 #
magicray wrote:
I found his statements on the reduced megapixel with kit lenses interesting. I wasn't aware that an 18mp camera would only record 9mp of detail with a kit lens.
His "facts" were valid, but his point is very open to question.
We are talking about interchangable lens cameras. The kit lens need not be of any concern at all, if his points are an issue to the buyer.
The real fact is that entry level camera bodies take excellent images with high end lenses. Or, that is true of Sony, Nikon, Pentax, etc etc even if not so true of Canon.
Nov 11, 2014 15:26:28 #
I have to disagree with Apaflo. The points in the video about lens breathing are right on the money. If I want to do a portrait at 200mm, I really can't do it with the Nikon lens, and I'm losing out as a result. Why should I shell out $2300 for a lens that can't really reach 200mm when I need it?
Nov 11, 2014 15:53:07 #
SteveR wrote:
I have to disagree with Apaflo. The points in the video about lens breathing are right on the money. If I want to do a portrait at 200mm, I really can't do it with the Nikon lens, and I'm losing out as a result. Why should I shell out $2300 for a lens that can't really reach 200mm when I need it?
Those of us who have experience are trying to let you benefit from that experience. I started shooting "people pictures" more than half a century ago. I've been extensively using the lens in question for that purpose since it was released. I'm not guessing... and don't make money hyping brands on the Internet!
If what you are claiming is important really is, then you'll want to look at the 80-200mm AF-S or AF-D lenses. You can do head shots at 200mm all day with them. It's great too. It just isn't any better than the 70-200mm lens. (Heck, you can also get an 80-400mm AF-S and have the same comparative results!)
Nov 12, 2014 01:44:26 #
Nov 12, 2014 01:44:40 #
Nov 12, 2014 03:42:54 #
For those who believe that tight head shots are best done with a 200mm focal length to obtain perspective compression, in a different thread I've posted a set of images that demonstrate how that is not true.
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-258578-4.html#4369248
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-258578-4.html#4369248
Nov 12, 2014 14:40:50 #
kymarto wrote:
Or get the 200mm f2 lens...
I wish Nikon had a 200mm prime that wasn't 5K or I might.
It might actually be worth purchasing the Canon 70-200mm f2.8 and a camera to go with it.
Nov 14, 2014 16:06:46 #
One problem with this video. The guy says Nikon only has a 50mm lens that costs over $200. That is incorrect. Nikon lists a 50mm f1.8d for $134, sans motor. If he lies about one thing, who knows what else he might be lying about?
Nov 14, 2014 16:37:10 #
SteveR wrote:
One problem with this video. The guy says Nikon only has a 50mm lens that costs over $200. That is incorrect. Nikon lists a 50mm f1.8d for $134, sans motor. If he lies about one thing, who knows what else he might be lying about?
His entire discussion about lenses is bogus from one end to the other.
For example, just above you've said they make it appear that buying a Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L lens and a camera to go with it would solve this (non-existant) focus breathing problem. Why? Well because the video flat says the Canon lens does not breath! Problems???
The Canon lens breaths!
You can't get to 200mm at the closest focusing distance with the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 lens. It will be at about 165mm, not 200mm.
Which is to say that it has much less focus breathing than the Nikon lens, but in fact if the numbers are plugged into all the arguments given in the video, the video says neither Canon or Nikon can produce a decent portrait with their 70-200mm lenses! In fact it plainly says that none of the modern 70-200mm f/2.8 zooms are useful for portrait! (They all breath.) And of course we know that any one of these lenses, focus breathing fire dragons or not, make great portrait lenses!
As I demonstrated in the other thread on this topic (see the provided link above) focal length does not affect perspective compression even slightly. The whole discussion in that video is technically bogus. It's either pretty dumb, or dishonest. Take your pick. (Either way, Tony Northrup isn't worth bothering with.)
Nov 14, 2014 17:57:05 #
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.