Isn't it the lenses in the end anyway?

[Glenn Barber]

Looking at the debate on sharpness, exposure, buffer handling, between Nikon and Canon DSLR's - my guess is that every 6-9 months we will have an offering from one or both which eclipses the functionality of the image capture, auto-focus, and auto-exposure capability of the other - and we will probably all be regularly upgrading to keep up - but in the end the quality of images we get will be limited more by lens quality (sharpness, lack of distortion and chromatic abberations, speed and accuracy of focus). I suspect even now a lot of our old favorites that worked great at 35mm are going to be challenged in the 6mp + digital environment.

Therefore it would seem our biggest and most lasting investment will be in lenses - and out best choice of camera system would be determined by who seems to have the best glass we can buy now.

I don't have much knowledge of Canon lens technology and how it compares to Nikon - although some of my pro friends swithced over to Canon years ago for the fast USM focus ans Image Stabilization.

Now Nikon has AFS on some but not all lenses, and has the Vibration reduction system.

I have a lot of old Nikon Glass (and a few new ones) - but if we were talking about starting out to purchase high quality lenses to work well on the DSLR's of the future - how would you say the Best of Nikon shape up against the best of Canon?

 

[Keith Aitken]

--
http://www.pbase.com/keith2

'If your ship does'nt come in, swim out to it'

 

[Glenn Barber]

I hope this doesn't turn out to be a punch up here - I seriously want to learn something.

--
http://www.pbase.com/keith2

Nice images - what were you shooting with?

'If your ship does'nt come in, swim out to it'

 

[Joseph S Wisniewski]

Looking at the debate on sharpness, exposure, buffer handling,
between Nikon and Canon DSLR's - my guess is that every 6-9 months
we will have an offering from one or both which eclipses the
functionality of the image capture, auto-focus, and auto-exposure
capability of the other

Probably.

and we will probably all be regularly upgrading to keep up

Probably not. They're actually hitting levels of acceptability which might see people keeping a digital body for more than a 2 year "computer upgrade" cycle. A D30/D100 class camera (6MP, great 8x10, acceptable 11x14) will hold me until I get ahold of something that's full 24x36mm, and 12 MP (for really popping, sellable 12x18). And tracking IC die sizes and costs, that's not going to be in my price range till somewhere around 2006. So maybe a DSLR upgrade in 4 years.

but in the end the quality of images we get
will be limited more by lens quality (sharpness, lack of distortion
and chromatic abberations, speed and accuracy of focus). I suspect
even now a lot of our old favorites that worked great at 35mm are
going to be challenged in the 6mp + digital environment.

I'd say you suspect wrong. The D100 puts 3000 pixels in the 24mm length of the CCD. Thats 125/mm. If the anti-aliasing were absolutly perfect (I won't get into the DSP math) that's only 62 lines/mm. You have to have a pretty mediocre lens to make this any worse than it already is.

I'm used to macro lenses (Luminars, or Macro-Nikkors (not Micro-Nikkors, I know the difference) that together with a fine grain film like Tech Pan will lay down about 300 lines/mm, or Velvia which can do around 200. That's 9 time sthe resolution of the D100, and twice the CCD area, or your basic 50M pixel CCD. 60% year resolution increase, and that is about year 2010.

Therefore it would seem our biggest and most lasting investment
will be in lenses - and out best choice of camera system would be
determined by who seems to have the best glass we can buy now.

Seams reasonable.

I don't have much knowledge of Canon lens technology and how it
compares to Nikon - although some of my pro friends swithced over
to Canon years ago for the fast USM focus ans Image Stabilization.

Now Nikon has AFS on some but not all lenses, and has the Vibration
reduction system.

Canon and Nikon are nearly ideltical. They both have true USM (circular motors around the lens body) only on their high end lenses. Low end Canon lenses have a system where the USM is tiny, and spins gears, so it's just like Nikon "screwdriver" drive, maybe even a little slower.

I think both Nikon and Canon are heading in the wrong direction when it comes to image stabilization. Give it a few more years and you'll see digital cameras that do the image stabilization in the camera, with all lenses, the way video cameras do it now.

I have a lot of old Nikon Glass (and a few new ones) - but if we
were talking about starting out to purchase high quality lenses to
work well on the DSLR's of the future - how would you say the Best
of Nikon shape up against the best of Canon?

Honestly, it's so hard to tell the difference between Nikon and Canon (go ahead, flame me) that I would have a lot of trouble picking a new system if I had to get rid of my 25 or so Nikkors and start over.

Ciao!

Joe

 

[Kevin Roczey]

Actually I think it's the Picture taker in the end.

1. You can buy a great lens...and you're right, don't underestimate the importance of a good lens.

2. You can buy a great body...but also don't underestimate the importance of accurate focus, exposure and flash which exist on the body but can be equally important as a lens.

3. Printer / Output...What does the lens and body matter if the printer or output device is no good.

4. The Picture taker...once you buy the best of the 3 above, you can still have lousy pictures ;-)

I would bet that I could take pictures with either a D60/S2/D100/D1X/D1H/D1 with a couple of zooms and primes, print them all out on my Canon S9000 at 4x6 or 8x10 mix them up, and nobody...and I mean NOBODY could tell me which picture was shot with which camera/lens combination.

Kevin R.

Looking at the debate on sharpness, exposure, buffer handling,
between Nikon and Canon DSLR's - my guess is that every 6-9 months
we will have an offering from one or both which eclipses the
functionality of the image capture, auto-focus, and auto-exposure
capability of the other - and we will probably all be regularly
upgrading to keep up - but in the end the quality of images we get
will be limited more by lens quality (sharpness, lack of distortion
and chromatic abberations, speed and accuracy of focus). I suspect
even now a lot of our old favorites that worked great at 35mm are
going to be challenged in the 6mp + digital environment.

Therefore it would seem our biggest and most lasting investment
will be in lenses - and out best choice of camera system would be
determined by who seems to have the best glass we can buy now.

I don't have much knowledge of Canon lens technology and how it
compares to Nikon - although some of my pro friends swithced over
to Canon years ago for the fast USM focus ans Image Stabilization.

Now Nikon has AFS on some but not all lenses, and has the Vibration
reduction system.

I have a lot of old Nikon Glass (and a few new ones) - but if we
were talking about starting out to purchase high quality lenses to
work well on the DSLR's of the future - how would you say the Best
of Nikon shape up against the best of Canon?

 

[Andrew Snow]

A 2.7 megapixel D1 (great 12x18s) will hold me for the time being

;-)

• Andrew

 

[Glenn Barber]

Looking at the debate on sharpness, exposure, buffer handling,
between Nikon and Canon DSLR's - my guess is that every 6-9 months
we will have an offering from one or both which eclipses the
functionality of the image capture, auto-focus, and auto-exposure
capability of the other

Probably.

and we will probably all be regularly upgrading to keep up

Probably not. They're actually hitting levels of acceptability
which might see people keeping a digital body for more than a 2
year "computer upgrade" cycle. A D30/D100 class camera (6MP, great
8x10, acceptable 11x14) will hold me until I get ahold of something
that's full 24x36mm, and 12 MP (for really popping, sellable
12x18). And tracking IC die sizes and costs, that's not going to be
in my price range till somewhere around 2006. So maybe a DSLR
upgrade in 4 years.

But if we have a 8mp full frame sensor in one year at a D100 price - I bet you'd buy in... I would. The manufacturers know this too and will be working like mad to achieve it.

but in the end the quality of images we get
will be limited more by lens quality (sharpness, lack of distortion
and chromatic abberations, speed and accuracy of focus). I suspect
even now a lot of our old favorites that worked great at 35mm are
going to be challenged in the 6mp + digital environment.

I'd say you suspect wrong. The D100 puts 3000 pixels in the 24mm
length of the CCD. Thats 125/mm. If the anti-aliasing were
absolutly perfect (I won't get into the DSP math) that's only 62
lines/mm. You have to have a pretty mediocre lens to make this any
worse than it already is.

Yet many of the explanations for lack of sharpness in some D100 images was the lens. I am not personally convinced that the distortion and chromatic effects in mediocre lenses aren't part of the problem.

I'm used to macro lenses (Luminars, or Macro-Nikkors (not
Micro-Nikkors, I know the difference) that together with a fine
grain film like Tech Pan will lay down about 300 lines/mm, or
Velvia which can do around 200. That's 9 time sthe resolution of
the D100, and twice the CCD area, or your basic 50M pixel CCD.
60% year resolution increase, and that is about year 2010.

Therefore it would seem our biggest and most lasting investment
will be in lenses - and out best choice of camera system would be
determined by who seems to have the best glass we can buy now.

Seams reasonable.

I don't have much knowledge of Canon lens technology and how it
compares to Nikon - although some of my pro friends swithced over
to Canon years ago for the fast USM focus ans Image Stabilization.

Now Nikon has AFS on some but not all lenses, and has the Vibration
reduction system.

Canon and Nikon are nearly ideltical. They both have true USM
(circular motors around the lens body) only on their high end
lenses. Low end Canon lenses have a system where the USM is tiny,
and spins gears, so it's just like Nikon "screwdriver" drive, maybe
even a little slower.

But I understand most of the mid-level lens are USM. For example Nikon has a 24-85 G 3.5+ lens but the better 24-85 2.8 ED is not. I would think that there will be a time in the not too distant future where mechanical drive from the camera body will become obsolete and we will have to replace the better glass.

I think both Nikon and Canon are heading in the wrong direction
when it comes to image stabilization. Give it a few more years and
you'll see digital cameras that do the image stabilization in the
camera, with all lenses, the way video cameras do it now.

The best in the dvcam video biz is still the Canon optical system... I've worked with both.

I have a lot of old Nikon Glass (and a few new ones) - but if we
were talking about starting out to purchase high quality lenses to
work well on the DSLR's of the future - how would you say the Best
of Nikon shape up against the best of Canon?

Honestly, it's so hard to tell the difference between Nikon and
Canon (go ahead, flame me) that I would have a lot of trouble
picking a new system if I had to get rid of my 25 or so Nikkors and
start over.

Thanks your info was very informative. I am not looking to knock Nikon - just trying to get more info.

Ciao!

Joe

 

[Glenn Barber]

Actually I think it's the Picture taker in the end.

1. You can buy a great lens...and you're right, don't underestimate
the importance of a good lens.

2. You can buy a great body...but also don't underestimate the
importance of accurate focus, exposure and flash which exist on the
body but can be equally important as a lens.

3. Printer / Output...What does the lens and body matter if the
printer or output device is no good.

4. The Picture taker...once you buy the best of the 3 above, you
can still have lousy pictures ;-)

I would bet that I could take pictures with either a
D60/S2/D100/D1X/D1H/D1 with a couple of zooms and primes, print
them all out on my Canon S9000 at 4x6 or 8x10 mix them up, and
nobody...and I mean NOBODY could tell me which picture was shot
with which camera/lens combination.

Yes - my best picture was taken with a brownie - but as a pro even 35mm didn't cut it and I had to move upward to 2 1/4 and 4X5. In the end, the advanced amateurs tend to follow what the pros and semi-pros do - and they always evolve to the most productive tools.

Kevin R.

Looking at the debate on sharpness, exposure, buffer handling,
between Nikon and Canon DSLR's - my guess is that every 6-9 months
we will have an offering from one or both which eclipses the
functionality of the image capture, auto-focus, and auto-exposure
capability of the other - and we will probably all be regularly
upgrading to keep up - but in the end the quality of images we get
will be limited more by lens quality (sharpness, lack of distortion
and chromatic abberations, speed and accuracy of focus). I suspect
even now a lot of our old favorites that worked great at 35mm are
going to be challenged in the 6mp + digital environment.

Therefore it would seem our biggest and most lasting investment
will be in lenses - and out best choice of camera system would be
determined by who seems to have the best glass we can buy now.

I don't have much knowledge of Canon lens technology and how it
compares to Nikon - although some of my pro friends swithced over
to Canon years ago for the fast USM focus ans Image Stabilization.

Now Nikon has AFS on some but not all lenses, and has the Vibration
reduction system.

I have a lot of old Nikon Glass (and a few new ones) - but if we
were talking about starting out to purchase high quality lenses to
work well on the DSLR's of the future - how would you say the Best
of Nikon shape up against the best of Canon?

 

[Glenn Barber]

A 2.7 megapixel D1 (great 12x18s) will hold me for the time being

It would probably hold me as well - but I am not sure I would want to hold it for too long. (too heavy...)

;-)

• Andrew

 

[Andrew Snow]

It would probably hold me as well - but I am not sure I would want
to hold it for too long. (too heavy...)

Yeah, it is heavy... wouldn't suit most people.

• Andrew

 

[FunD2h]

And that is the great thing about these cameras!!!! But the competition is the benefits we are all reaping now!!!

ken
Growing Amature
D1h
50mm 1.4D AF
80-200mm 2.8D AF
24-85mm 2.8-4D AF
SB28

 

[FunD2h]

My D1h suits me fine.....weight and all!!!!

 

[Glenn Barber]

It would probably hold me as well - but I am not sure I would want
to hold it for too long. (too heavy...)

Yeah, it is heavy... wouldn't suit most people.

My wife has to be able to use it - and when we go on family outings even the d100 with a 18-35 left me with a stiff neck. Got to get a better carrying system.

Here's a shot at what traveling light looks like with three small kids.

http://www.pbase.com/image/3299391/large

• Andrew

 

[michaeladawson]

You know, someone posted a reply with an edited subject line that says it all... "Isn't it the photographer". The content did not match the subject line and know one seems to have picked up on it.

Actually I think no one wanted to pick up on it. Everyone wants to talk specs. Which lens is better, which body.

Granted, this is a hardware forum so I understand why the discussion centers on this topic.

But in the end it is not the bodies, not the lenses, it is the photographer. This constant battle over the best followed by a posting of yet another dog or flower picture to prove the point is amusing to say the least.

A great photographer will produce lasting images with the crudest of cameras.

Anyway, I don't need to go on, it's all been said countless times before. I simply wanted to echo a previous sentiment that it is not the lenses in the end, it is the photographer.

Mike

Looking at the debate on sharpness, exposure, buffer handling,
between Nikon and Canon DSLR's - my guess is that every 6-9 months
we will have an offering from one or both which eclipses the
functionality of the image capture, auto-focus, and auto-exposure
capability of the other - and we will probably all be regularly
upgrading to keep up - but in the end the quality of images we get
will be limited more by lens quality (sharpness, lack of distortion
and chromatic abberations, speed and accuracy of focus). I suspect
even now a lot of our old favorites that worked great at 35mm are
going to be challenged in the 6mp + digital environment.

Therefore it would seem our biggest and most lasting investment
will be in lenses - and out best choice of camera system would be
determined by who seems to have the best glass we can buy now.

I don't have much knowledge of Canon lens technology and how it
compares to Nikon - although some of my pro friends swithced over
to Canon years ago for the fast USM focus ans Image Stabilization.

Now Nikon has AFS on some but not all lenses, and has the Vibration
reduction system.

I have a lot of old Nikon Glass (and a few new ones) - but if we
were talking about starting out to purchase high quality lenses to
work well on the DSLR's of the future - how would you say the Best
of Nikon shape up against the best of Canon?

 

[Glenn Barber]

You know, someone posted a reply with an edited subject line that
says it all... "Isn't it the photographer". The content did not
match the subject line and know one seems to have picked up on it.

Actually I think no one wanted to pick up on it. Everyone wants to
talk specs. Which lens is better, which body.

Granted, this is a hardware forum so I understand why the
discussion centers on this topic.

But in the end it is not the bodies, not the lenses, it is the
photographer. This constant battle over the best followed by a
posting of yet another dog or flower picture to prove the point is
amusing to say the least.

A great photographer will produce lasting images with the crudest
of cameras.

Anyway, I don't need to go on, it's all been said countless times
before. I simply wanted to echo a previous sentiment that it is
not the lenses in the end, it is the photographer.

I have heard this "Zen of Photography" before - and my response is that the good artist (photographer or whatever) picks the best brush. Knowing which is the best brush and how to use it comes from vast experience - and education from their masters and peers - and that's what this forum is all about.

Nobody is a great artist without a hell of a lot of time learning about the advantages and disadvantages of each of the tools of the art. I know a number of famous artists in several professions (photographers included) and they are uniformly insulted when someone suggests that its "just some innate talent" they have. They know they worked their asses off to get where they are.

Mike

Looking at the debate on sharpness, exposure, buffer handling,
between Nikon and Canon DSLR's - my guess is that every 6-9 months
we will have an offering from one or both which eclipses the
functionality of the image capture, auto-focus, and auto-exposure
capability of the other - and we will probably all be regularly
upgrading to keep up - but in the end the quality of images we get
will be limited more by lens quality (sharpness, lack of distortion
and chromatic abberations, speed and accuracy of focus). I suspect
even now a lot of our old favorites that worked great at 35mm are
going to be challenged in the 6mp + digital environment.

Therefore it would seem our biggest and most lasting investment
will be in lenses - and out best choice of camera system would be
determined by who seems to have the best glass we can buy now.

I don't have much knowledge of Canon lens technology and how it
compares to Nikon - although some of my pro friends swithced over
to Canon years ago for the fast USM focus ans Image Stabilization.

Now Nikon has AFS on some but not all lenses, and has the Vibration
reduction system.

I have a lot of old Nikon Glass (and a few new ones) - but if we
were talking about starting out to purchase high quality lenses to
work well on the DSLR's of the future - how would you say the Best
of Nikon shape up against the best of Canon?

 

[Kevin Roczey]

That's an interesting point about the brush. I bet they don't pick the "best" brush, because it doesn't exist. It depends upon their need, use and style as to which brush they feel is best for their application. No doubt that it's a lot of hard work, but some innate talent doesn't hurt any (Do you think they have a website they go to so they can debate the pros and cons of new brush releases

Kevin R.

I have heard this "Zen of Photography" before - and my response is
that the good artist (photographer or whatever) picks the best
brush. Knowing which is the best brush and how to use it comes from
vast experience - and education from their masters and peers - and
that's what this forum is all about.

Nobody is a great artist without a hell of a lot of time learning
about the advantages and disadvantages of each of the tools of the
art. I know a number of famous artists in several professions
(photographers included) and they are uniformly insulted when
someone suggests that its "just some innate talent" they have.
They know they worked their asses off to get where they are.

 

[michaeladawson]

I'm not talking about any Zen here. And I agree with your photographer friends. I'm sure they did work their asses off to get the skills they now possess.

When I say that the great photographer will produce lasting images with the crudest of cameras I am not suggesting that they do it with some natural born ability.

Rather, they spent their time honing their skills, analyzing composition, learning print processing work in the darkroom.

I get the impression that a large number of people in this forum spend their time arguing over hardware specs rather than developing their skills as a photographer. That's not what this thread was about. I only posted my comment to make the statement that in the end it's the photographer.

And yes, I find myself spending far too much time on this forum as of late. I got my D100 2 weeks ago and came to this forum to read about others experiences with the camera. I should take my own advice and spend more time developing my skills.

To be fair to the forum I must admit that I started following it a week after the introduction of the D100. This naturally has sparked a flurry of messages. So what I have seen in the last couple weeks may not be the norm.

You know, someone posted a reply with an edited subject line that
says it all... "Isn't it the photographer". The content did not
match the subject line and know one seems to have picked up on it.

Actually I think no one wanted to pick up on it. Everyone wants to
talk specs. Which lens is better, which body.

Granted, this is a hardware forum so I understand why the
discussion centers on this topic.

But in the end it is not the bodies, not the lenses, it is the
photographer. This constant battle over the best followed by a
posting of yet another dog or flower picture to prove the point is
amusing to say the least.

A great photographer will produce lasting images with the crudest
of cameras.

Anyway, I don't need to go on, it's all been said countless times
before. I simply wanted to echo a previous sentiment that it is
not the lenses in the end, it is the photographer.

I have heard this "Zen of Photography" before - and my response is
that the good artist (photographer or whatever) picks the best
brush. Knowing which is the best brush and how to use it comes from
vast experience - and education from their masters and peers - and
that's what this forum is all about.

Nobody is a great artist without a hell of a lot of time learning
about the advantages and disadvantages of each of the tools of the
art. I know a number of famous artists in several professions
(photographers included) and they are uniformly insulted when
someone suggests that its "just some innate talent" they have.
They know they worked their asses off to get where they are.

Mike

Looking at the debate on sharpness, exposure, buffer handling,
between Nikon and Canon DSLR's - my guess is that every 6-9 months
we will have an offering from one or both which eclipses the
functionality of the image capture, auto-focus, and auto-exposure
capability of the other - and we will probably all be regularly
upgrading to keep up - but in the end the quality of images we get
will be limited more by lens quality (sharpness, lack of distortion
and chromatic abberations, speed and accuracy of focus). I suspect
even now a lot of our old favorites that worked great at 35mm are
going to be challenged in the 6mp + digital environment.

Therefore it would seem our biggest and most lasting investment
will be in lenses - and out best choice of camera system would be
determined by who seems to have the best glass we can buy now.

I don't have much knowledge of Canon lens technology and how it
compares to Nikon - although some of my pro friends swithced over
to Canon years ago for the fast USM focus ans Image Stabilization.

Now Nikon has AFS on some but not all lenses, and has the Vibration
reduction system.

I have a lot of old Nikon Glass (and a few new ones) - but if we
were talking about starting out to purchase high quality lenses to
work well on the DSLR's of the future - how would you say the Best
of Nikon shape up against the best of Canon?

 

[Ron Reznick]

Sling the camera across your body, from the right shoulder to the left hip. This puts the weight on large muscles and allows your entire upper frame to support the weight. It's a very bad idea to make your neck support too much weight -- damage is possible.

Ron

PS: I agree that the lenses are far more critical than the figures stated above would make some folks think. It is exceptionally easy to tell a good lens from a mediocre one based on my experience.

It would probably hold me as well - but I am not sure I would want
to hold it for too long. (too heavy...)

Yeah, it is heavy... wouldn't suit most people.

My wife has to be able to use it - and when we go on family outings
even the d100 with a 18-35 left me with a stiff neck. Got to get a
better carrying system.

Here's a shot at what traveling light looks like with three small
kids.

http://www.pbase.com/image/3299391/large

• Andrew

--
Ron Reznick
http://digital-images.net
http://trapagon.com

 

[Ron Reznick]

An excellent point -- a good eye with good compositional and technical skills will yield a good photograph with mediocre equipment, but that same person with better gear will yield a better result. Besides, the right gear will give you options and flexibility that you will not be able to achieve with the wrong or lesser gear. In the end, of course it is the skills and vision of the photographer, but that same photographer with the right equipment for the job can produce superior work.

Ron

Actually I think no one wanted to pick up on it. Everyone wants to
talk specs. Which lens is better, which body.

Granted, this is a hardware forum so I understand why the
discussion centers on this topic.

But in the end it is not the bodies, not the lenses, it is the
photographer. This constant battle over the best followed by a
posting of yet another dog or flower picture to prove the point is
amusing to say the least.

A great photographer will produce lasting images with the crudest
of cameras.

Anyway, I don't need to go on, it's all been said countless times
before. I simply wanted to echo a previous sentiment that it is
not the lenses in the end, it is the photographer.

Mike

Looking at the debate on sharpness, exposure, buffer handling,
between Nikon and Canon DSLR's - my guess is that every 6-9 months
we will have an offering from one or both which eclipses the
functionality of the image capture, auto-focus, and auto-exposure
capability of the other - and we will probably all be regularly
upgrading to keep up - but in the end the quality of images we get
will be limited more by lens quality (sharpness, lack of distortion
and chromatic abberations, speed and accuracy of focus). I suspect
even now a lot of our old favorites that worked great at 35mm are
going to be challenged in the 6mp + digital environment.

Therefore it would seem our biggest and most lasting investment
will be in lenses - and out best choice of camera system would be
determined by who seems to have the best glass we can buy now.

I don't have much knowledge of Canon lens technology and how it
compares to Nikon - although some of my pro friends swithced over
to Canon years ago for the fast USM focus ans Image Stabilization.

Now Nikon has AFS on some but not all lenses, and has the Vibration
reduction system.

I have a lot of old Nikon Glass (and a few new ones) - but if we
were talking about starting out to purchase high quality lenses to
work well on the DSLR's of the future - how would you say the Best
of Nikon shape up against the best of Canon?

--
Ron Reznick
http://digital-images.net
http://trapagon.com

 

[michaeladawson]

Agree with everything you say.

Ron

Actually I think no one wanted to pick up on it. Everyone wants to
talk specs. Which lens is better, which body.

Granted, this is a hardware forum so I understand why the
discussion centers on this topic.

But in the end it is not the bodies, not the lenses, it is the
photographer. This constant battle over the best followed by a
posting of yet another dog or flower picture to prove the point is
amusing to say the least.

A great photographer will produce lasting images with the crudest
of cameras.

Anyway, I don't need to go on, it's all been said countless times
before. I simply wanted to echo a previous sentiment that it is
not the lenses in the end, it is the photographer.

Mike

Looking at the debate on sharpness, exposure, buffer handling,
between Nikon and Canon DSLR's - my guess is that every 6-9 months
we will have an offering from one or both which eclipses the
functionality of the image capture, auto-focus, and auto-exposure
capability of the other - and we will probably all be regularly
upgrading to keep up - but in the end the quality of images we get
will be limited more by lens quality (sharpness, lack of distortion
and chromatic abberations, speed and accuracy of focus). I suspect
even now a lot of our old favorites that worked great at 35mm are
going to be challenged in the 6mp + digital environment.

Therefore it would seem our biggest and most lasting investment
will be in lenses - and out best choice of camera system would be
determined by who seems to have the best glass we can buy now.

I don't have much knowledge of Canon lens technology and how it
compares to Nikon - although some of my pro friends swithced over
to Canon years ago for the fast USM focus ans Image Stabilization.

Now Nikon has AFS on some but not all lenses, and has the Vibration
reduction system.

I have a lot of old Nikon Glass (and a few new ones) - but if we
were talking about starting out to purchase high quality lenses to
work well on the DSLR's of the future - how would you say the Best
of Nikon shape up against the best of Canon?

--
Ron Reznick
http://digital-images.net
http://trapagon.com