Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Switching, anything I need to know?  (Read 3209 times)
jcarlin
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 31


« on: August 24, 2005, 01:18:24 AM »
ReplyReply

Before you switch, what are your reasons for the switch.  If you decide to do so the 70-200L's are considered excellent, your "walk" around lens will depend on FF vs. cropped sensor.  For full frame the 24-70L is excellent and the new 24-105L will likely also be excellent.  You may want to read Micheal's comments on the subject of lenses.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/...on_lenses.shtml

John
Logged
milanissimo
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 21


« Reply #1 on: August 27, 2005, 04:05:16 PM »
ReplyReply

Shaan

Please tell us why you wanna switch. I have moderate experience with both systems (Nikon 1 year, my own 20d came 3 weeks ago), I can asure you (and many other will also do the same), that theese two are the best you can get. In fact, any D-SLR can produce superb images, but N and C are the best.
If you already own some Nikon stuff (and especially good one), then stay with it, IMO it's not worth switching, unless you want magnesium body, 5fps, 65 ms shutter lag, iso 3200, mirror lock-up and custom WB which is what 20D offers compared to Nikon D70s.
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5124


« Reply #2 on: August 31, 2005, 06:48:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
... the 12 - 24 isn't really an answer for me ( too much change in perspective )
Can you explain the problem with the 12-24? The perspective opportunities of that lens are the same as with about 18-36mm in 35mm format, so are you wanting wider than "18mm equivalent" and not happy with the third party options like 11-22mm?

P. S. To me format choice is a means to an end, so comments that one format is better or worse than another mean nothing unless the problems and advantages are stated in terms of final image quality (perspective, DOF, shutter speed, resolution and print noise levels) or in terms of ergonomics and such.
Logged
kenstrain
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 23


« Reply #3 on: September 05, 2005, 02:51:41 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
"The perspective change is that where the wider the lens , the more distant objects in the scene appear from one another in depth."
I do not understand what you mean by that.  Perspective is entirely defined by the position of the camera with respect to the elements of the scene (nothing whatsoever to do with the lens) - so you must mean something different by "perspective change", but I cannot work out what.  (Of course
a wide angle lens allows you to move closer to a subject and so change the perspective, but that does not depend on format, simply angle of view.)
Confused,
Ken
Logged
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #4 on: September 05, 2005, 05:11:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
A telephoto compresses the apparent visual distance between objects - A wide angle makes them look further apart.
That isn't true. If you shoot the fence with a 50mm and a 200mm lens without moving the camera between shots, and crop the 50mm shot to match the 200mm shot, and then print both images at the same size, you'll find the only difference between them will be that the 200mm shot is more detailed because it has beeen cropped less than the 50mm shot. Perspective will be identical. It's the change in camera position that is typically done to accommodate the difference in FOV that causes the perspective change, not any difference between the lenses.
Logged

shaan
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 16


« Reply #5 on: August 23, 2005, 09:15:02 AM »
ReplyReply

After being in the Nikon system for a couple years I am going back to Canon for various reasons. Having never owned a mid or high end Canon is there anything i should know about the system and any lenses considered must have?

Thanks

Shaan
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7872



WWW
« Reply #6 on: August 24, 2005, 06:59:37 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
After being in the Nikon system for a couple years I am going back to Canon for various reasons. Having never owned a mid or high end Canon is there anything i should know about the system and any lenses considered must have?

Thanks

Shaan
Hi Shaan,

If you don't mind, I would also be interested in your motivations for switching.

Although I have always made it clear that I am a Nikon user, I have never ruled out the possibility to buy into Canon at some point of time if I feel that they start to offer significantly more for my (mainly) landscape applications.

Today, I don't have this feeling, and the 5D landscape sample does encourage me even less to enforce an actual switch in the short/medium term.

I would strongly advice that you wait a couple more weeks to see what Nikon has in its sleeves as a replacement of the D100.

Best regards,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
Sean S
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3


« Reply #7 on: August 28, 2005, 06:13:26 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm a long time nikon/Kodak Nikon user but I find my self recently seriously contemplating a switch to Canon.

While I'm generally happy with my 14nx, 17- 35 2.8, 24-120 ( Never in the studio!), Macro 60 and 105,80-200 2.8, 50 1.4 and 35 f2 primes I find once the 14nx is on the way out ( it gets thrashed ) there is no where to go if you are a wide angle , full frame style of photographer in the Nikon line.

The d2x is fabulous, but its not full frame and the 12 - 24 isn't really an answer for me ( too much change in perspective ). Nikon saying full frame is not a priority for them is not helping either - the always seem to be behind. If they haven't delivered a full frame camera in the next six months or so I'll have to change.

Canon just seems to be concerned with delivering products photographers need on time and at more reasonable prices - the 1ds Mk 2 is half what I paid for a dcs 760 four years ago ( the d30 was the only Canon option then) and the option of the 17 - 40mm f4 or 16 - 35 f2.8 depending on budget is almost too good to resist. And a constant apeture 24-105! Wow.

Thats my excuse - good luck with yours.
Logged
Sean S
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3


« Reply #8 on: September 04, 2005, 10:40:28 PM »
ReplyReply

No problem - I was a medium format user mostly until recently. The perspective change is that where the wider the lens , the more distant objects in the scene appear from one another in depth. This is why I used medium format as a 40mm wide Hasselblad lens has almost the same perspective as a 50mm standard on 35mm ( full frame ) format, it shoots a wider area( approx 24mm equivalent ). If it was just width , I would slap the 12 - 24 on and be done with it.

Its not really the width of view , rather the depth. 12 - 24 just spreads things out too far for my personal taste ( 17mm is really further than I want to go -but very useful at times).
 I guess I'm really a medium format person , but have adapted from that to 1.3 crop ( Kodak 760 ) Full frame has been better (Kodak 14nx ) - along with the advantage of more selective focus control.
Having to go back to a 1.5 factor , for me any way seems like a retrograde step, and in the absence of any Nikon option , I will move to Canon.

Until the medium format options settle a little more and perhaps a few morewide angle options available I am reluctant to commit large amounts of money there for now.
Logged
Sean S
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3


« Reply #9 on: September 05, 2005, 02:44:37 PM »
ReplyReply

A telephoto compresses the apparent visual distance between objects - A wide angle makes them look further apart. A shot of any line up of fence posts on an acute angle with either will demonstrate this. The smaller the focal length of  the lens , the further they will appear apart.
 A 50mm lens is considered "normal" not for its angle of view( which is much narrower than human vision) but for the visual relationship between objects in the scene photographed with this lens . I think what you are thinking of re angle of view is composition , not perspective.
Logged
kenstrain
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 23


« Reply #10 on: September 05, 2005, 04:10:36 PM »
ReplyReply

No, I am correct.  Perspective does not depend on the lens, only on the position of the camera.  I cannot find a glossary on this site, but that on "dpreview" states the correct, accepted definition, with an example to view should you remain doubtful.  The misconception which you hold arises because it is normal to view a subject from greater distance with a lens of longer focal length. It is the distance change that creates compression, not the focal length.   Many photograhers try to change the meaning of perspective, as used by visual artists for centuries.

A dictionary tells me:-

"The noun perspective has 2 meanings:

Meaning #1: a way of regarding situations or topics etc.
  Synonyms: position, view

Meaning #2: the appearance of things relative to one another as determined by their distance from the viewer
  Synonym: linear perspective"

(The word linear is actually quite important, but usually dropped in general conversation.)

Ken.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad