Why do people say ...

[PalmsWestPhoto]

just looking at some of the replies here will tell you a lot. Some people seem to have mixed up your original post and find reasons for both mixed up sides as well

it generally has to do with people owning either side of equipment and trying to find a reason why theirs is 'better' that cant really be easily proven either way.

Some people 'heard' it from a sales guy at ritz and obviously he should know as he is a 'professional'

Some other people heard it here at dpr from the guy who heard it at ritz and obviously that must be right ...

essentially it boils down to gullible people and gullible people repeating garbage ..

A good photographer will create nice landscapes using either nikon or canon just like a good photographer will be able to create nice portraits in either system

Anyone who says otherwise falls into the gullible category mentioned above ...

--
Michael Salzlechner
http://www.Salzlechner.com
http://www.PalmsWestPhoto.com

 

[brightcolours]

not really, no.

 

[JEMD]

examples of defocus image control I found on the web:

http://flickr.com/photos/kome8/2128790184/sizes/o/in/photostream/
http://flickr.com/photos/ilmoon/2272909129/in/set-72157603858665142/

softfocus , not my thing sorry...

 

[brightcolours]

That is just misuse of the lens... not what the lens is capable of.

Things like this are a better illustration:
http://www.pbase.com/image/71503304



The subject very much in focus, yet the background blurry.

I am not a fan of the look, as the subjects seem to be stuck onto the background picture. But if you like the look, its a nice lens to have.

 

[JEMD]

thats a good example thanks

I though this DC always blurred the infocus part to a certain degree, guess not..

One of the reasons I chose Canon over Nikon 3 years ago! Well, main reason was the high iso performance and full frame sensor of the 5D, lenses came second

That is just misuse of the lens... not what the lens is capable of.

Things like this are a better illustration:
http://www.pbase.com/image/71503304



The subject very much in focus, yet the background blurry.

I am not a fan of the look, as the subjects seem to be stuck onto the
background picture. But if you like the look, its a nice lens to have.

 

[Jim Lee]

The Nikon DC lenses are really just a gimmick. All it does is shift the plane of focus a bit either in front of or behind the subject and relies on the depth of field to keep the subject in focus.

It has a dial with f/stop numbers on it that you turn to nudge the focus a bit to the f/stop you are shooting at so that you can still keep the subject in focus. It's nothing that you can't do with any lens if you understand the basics and know what you are doing.

I was a Nikon user for many years and was disappointed when they finally came out with AF 105mm lens and 135mm lenses, only to add that useless feature which added to the size and price of the lenses.

 

[brightcolours]

The Nikon DC lenses are really just a gimmick. All it does is shift
the plane of focus a bit either in front of or behind the subject and
relies on the depth of field to keep the subject in focus.

It has a dial with f/stop numbers on it that you turn to nudge the
focus a bit to the f/stop you are shooting at so that you can still
keep the subject in focus. It's nothing that you can't do with any
lens if you understand the basics and know what you are doing.

That is NOT how the DC lenses work. It does not shift the focal plane. Focus keeps on the subject, no matter how you use the DC ring.

You can not do the same thing with just any other lens.

 

[Jim Lee]

That is NOT how the DC lenses work. It does not shift the focal
plane. Focus keeps on the subject, no matter how you use the DC ring.

You can not do the same thing with just any other lens.

Pick up a DC lens a give it a try sometime. I have NEVER seen a photos taken with the 135 DC lens that could not be shot with the Canon 135/2. (or the 105 DC compared to the Canon 100/2)