Cheesecake
Senior Member
alrite...TMC said:
Paul can be all he wants and change his D2X to a shocking pink as long as he produce his pro fotos. :bsmilie:
All the Pros and Cons of Nikon
- Thread starter Chris Lim
- Start date
- Status
Paul can be all he wants and change his D2X to a shocking pink as long as he produce his pro fotos. :bsmilie:
roti_prata
New Member
canon has USM in almost everything, even the japan version of the 18-55 kit lens has USM, not to mention tt they've got IS in many of these as well.lsisaxon said:
some ppl say theres not use for IS on normal and wider lenses, i think theres no use for it only when ur on a tripod.
nikon only offers VR and to some extent, afs, on the pro series(>$2000)
Cheesecake
Senior Member
roti_prata said:
canon made the progression into USM and I.S techie in their lenses much earlier perhaps due to a much better and faster research in such areas.
they are more daring(even on their lens mount, yes), perhaps spurred on by huge fundings, in making reform.
Nikon on the other hand is much more traditional in their approach but more often than not, their newly developed products do amaze their users and followers.
Nikon is not only making AFS with VR on their S$2k lenses. we've a few, the AFS24-120VR, the AFS18-200 VR... they do not cost above S$2k. i feel VR should only be added to lenses that really requires them. now, AFS is almost a standard feature on all new lenses developed by Nikon.
in the future, lenses from Nikon will feature such gadgets such as AFS and VR. ur wallet should be thicker to embrace these newest lenses as well as servicing costs.
Cheesecake said:
Very hopeful words Cheesecake. I've been wondering about the VR and its progress on to the lower end range of lenses as well. If it really does pull through and doesn't cost as much, i think it'll be a very good marketing strat to boost sales. Even the Cool pix has it already. VRII
Cheesecake
Senior Member
okok, D2X in pink is fine. :thumbsup:
VR is as useful as only on the longer zooms, zooms beyond 300MM is really pretty practically useless apart from a few useful quick action shots whereby you don't have time to mount on tripods. Try handling a 200 f/2VR handheld, and you'll be wondering why the h*ll, you'd want VR on the 300 f/2.8VR and up.Chris Lim said:
As for USM/AF-S, certain ranged glasses do NOT need them at all, look at the AF 10.5 FE f/2.8DX, it doesn't need AF-S at all. The cost of putting in the SWM in a 50 mm or 85 mm doesn't seem even useful. Even on the new Micro 105 f/2.8D is AF-S necessary?
Technology is good, but only where it's necessary.
wildstallion
Senior Member
espn said:VR is as useful as only on the longer zooms, zooms beyond 300MM is really pretty practically useless apart from a few useful quick action shots whereby you don't have time to mount on tripods. Try handling a 200 f/2VR handheld, and you'll be wondering why the h*ll, you'd want VR on the 300 f/2.8VR and up.
As for USM/AF-S, certain ranged glasses do NOT need them at all, look at the AF 10.5 FE f/2.8DX, it doesn't need AF-S at all. The cost of putting in the SWM in a 50 mm or 85 mm doesn't seem even useful. Even on the new Micro 105 f/2.8D is AF-S necessary?
Technology is good, but only where it's necessary.
Agree, Pro Comment :thumbsup:
I find some of the nikon sensors very noisy and would ever want to go above iso800 in dark conditions because the noise level is too high, I have heard that canon sensors can handle noise alot better, but then again so can the d200 and D2X whne compared to the d70(s) and d50.
Cheesecake
Senior Member
wildstallion said:
erm...
CCD and CMOS.. :dunno:
espn said:VR is as useful as only on the longer zooms, zooms beyond 300MM is really pretty practically useless apart from a few useful quick action shots whereby you don't have time to mount on tripods. Try handling a 200 f/2VR handheld, and you'll be wondering why the h*ll, you'd want VR on the 300 f/2.8VR and up.
As for USM/AF-S, certain ranged glasses do NOT need them at all, look at the AF 10.5 FE f/2.8DX, it doesn't need AF-S at all. The cost of putting in the SWM in a 50 mm or 85 mm doesn't seem even useful. Even on the new Micro 105 f/2.8D is AF-S necessary?
Technology is good, but only where it's necessary.
Hear Hear - well said.:thumbsup:
plainsunset
New Member
I guess every brand has it's pros and cons ba. Else that brand would have disappeared from the face of the Earth long time ago lor.
But the thing is...what is con to one person might actually be a pro for another. Depending on user, pros and cons also varies.
In the end...this thread will become a debate of pros and cons.
Sometimes...pro and cons..need to find out for urself one lor....
But the thing is...what is con to one person might actually be a pro for another. Depending on user, pros and cons also varies.
In the end...this thread will become a debate of pros and cons.
Sometimes...pro and cons..need to find out for urself one lor....
wildstallion
Senior Member
Cheesecake said:
but d200 using ccd?
but yeah, could explain the difference between the d70 and d2x and canon range
roti_prata
New Member
i dont really understand ur 1st sentance, some typo perhaps? i agree tt VR is kinda useless on long lenses 300mm and up coz how often do ppl shoot them handheld?espn said:
rather, i often hoped for VR on standard zooms which i seldom use with tripods/monopods.
the canon 17-55/2.8 IS USM sounds really good:lovegrin:
- Status
Similar threads
