NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/rec/photo/22485

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-23 | 7.8 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!gatech!rpi!utcsri!csri.toronto.edu!acs
Newsgroups: rec.photo
From: [e-mail] (Alvin Chia-Hua Shih)
Subject: Re: Canon 10s Vs Nikon N90, Which one?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>     <[e-mail]>     <[e-mail]>     <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: 24 Dec 92 00:40:29 GMT
Lines: 172

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Benson Wen) writes:

>Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! No more napalm!!  (well, just a
>wee bit more....)

Maybe all this X'mas music has put me on edge... :-)

>Sorry, Alvin, I'm a staunch Canon supporter and EOS shooter, but geez,
>let's get some facts straight!

Again, my apologies.

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Alvin Chia-Hua Shih) writes:

>   In summary:
>     - Body intergral AF is inferior.  For Nikon boosters to deny this is
>    to contradict the direction in which Nikon.

>Actually, the jury is still out... Nikon seems to have a good
>engineering sense, have *BOTH* available.  Body integral for small
>light lenses (IF's included,) lens integral for the massive
>jobs.  With the N90's support of this philosophy, it looks like the
>way Nikon is headed.  Let's all bow our heads a moment and thank the
>gods that neither Nikon nor Canon has dipped into the lens-integral-
>motor-for-zooming camp (well, okay, Canon transgressed once, but
>they've repented).

Ok.  I have no problems with having both types available.

>I think the major win of lens integral motors for Canon is USM's...
>whooo!  Didja hear that!  Nope!  Nx00x(s) and F4's and N90's are
>NOISY.  And yeah, they ain't slow...but, since we're talking about
>non-trivial glass (the 300 and 600 AF-I's) take a gander at the EF85f1.2L
>and EF50f1.0L...urk.  The F3AF 200f? is almost as fast, and just about
>as noisy.

>And of course, the corallary of USM is on the fly, on demand MANUAL
>FOCUS, a non-trivial win.

Good points on USM.

>     - There is no cost savings to Nikon owners due to lens-integral motors
>    because Nikon no longer makes AF lenses without motors in them

>Not true, so nope.

Motor or not, the decoder costs extra, and N8008s owners can't use it.
And, there's still the case of N8008s bodies not being able to drive
AF-I lenses.

>     - It is a contradiction to talk about "economical" and "professional"
>    at the same time.

>A professional is subject to economics too!  Just because it's how you
>earn your living doesn't mean you can spend an infinite amount of $$$!
>In fact it might be just the opposite, you'd be even more careful
>in how your photo dollars go, with such a vested interest.

Perhaps.  But we are talking performance issues.  One would think that
the professional would see that a more versatile tool (one that AFs
faster, say) would be an investment in increasing the probability of
getting a difficult shot.  (That's what professionals are for, right?)

>     - It is irresponsible to push Nikon based on its "Professional Services"
>    because the majority of people shopping for cameras on rec.photo
>    will never benefit.

>Maybe.  But it's sort of the prestige thing, I guess.  That someone
>somewhere out there is shooting the same stuff you do and has C/NPS
>behind them adds to the allure, n'est pas?

Not really.  The fact that someone out there shoots professionally
does nothing for the photographs I take.  If I see a shot in "Tennis"
magazine say, do they tell me who shot it?  How it was shot?

If you can afford to buy equipment based on "allure", you're financially
better off than I.

>     - It is irresponsible to push Nikon based on its warranty coverage
>    (2 years in Canada) because they have hassled (mere) amateurs over
>    legitimate repairs and have such a poor turnaround time.

>Maybe.

Well, let's just say I've heard many bad things about Nikon warrantee
service and no good things.  Why should I ignore those datapoints?

>Let's not forget the N90's most glorious, if a bit complicated, flash
>system.  DISTANCE!  Hah!  What an idea...I wonder if Canon is thinking
>"duuuuuh, why didn't I think of that?!"  Actually Canon *DID* think of
>it for it's FD system... it was called CAT for Canon Auto Tuning.
>You stuck a dedicated potentiometer on the front of your lens, coupled
>to the focusing ring.  A wire ran to the flash and cut it off as a
>function of distance.  You selected the aperture as a function of ASA.
>And FP sync is nothing new, check out the Olympus OM-4(T)...1/4000
>wimp-sync, also.

Canon includes distance decoders in the 70-210 USM and 100-300 USM (and
a few others).  Though they go unused now, it's not like Canon is
clueless about such things.


Welcome to Flash Photography 201:
(I assume you all have the prerequisite, Flash Photography 101 :-)

Distance info is useful in getting a rough idea as to what's going on,
but the guide number calculations don't do much.  All you can do is get
a rough guess as to what aperture you can stop down to.  If distance
information were so useful, there would be no need for OTF metering.

In ATTL, Canon uses a preflash to actively judge subject distance
rather than passively.  This factors in light loss from bouncing off
different kinds of surfaces, and light *gains* from bouncing off
different kinds of surfaces.  You simply cannot make the remotest use
the GN calculations for anything but direct flash.

Personally, I avoid direct flash, and most light modifiers are bound to
screw up the GN calculations, either because of light loss, or because
they require the head to be up (like the Lumiquest pocket bouncer).  So
for most shots, the distance information would have to be thrown away!

Notice that Nikon N90 now does preflashing.  Hmmm.

Since I don't have an N90, I can't say for sure, but I get the
impression that it does the preflashes after you press the shutter
release all the way and the mirror flips up to expose an 18% gray
shutter curtain, and then the film is exposed.

I prefer the ATTL system which tells me what aperture and shutter I'm
getting before it fires.  It helps me correct myself if I've got a bad
bounce angle.

>And, Nikon's AM200 focuses in MUCH LOWER LIGHT AND CONTRAST than
>anyone.  I'm curious as to whether the CAM246 is as good.

From what I've read, the F4 and N8008s tend to hunt quite a lot.  If
the AM200 does indeed focus in much lower light and contrast, the
rest of the camera is ignoring it!

And when did Nikon discover cross-type AF sensors?  The diagram for
CAM246 system looks suspiciously similar to the cross-BASIS sensor
diagram of the EOS-1 (released 1989).  (Of course, Honeywell sued
every last one of 'em so maybe this is all moot. :-)

>*F-O*

Flames?  What flames?  This is intelligent discussion of camera
technology on rec.photo, right?  RIGHT?!?  :-)

>(hah, I just got added to a few more kill files!)

Nah.  I'll keep you around a bit longer, toy with you, and then
dispense with you in some creative manner!  :-)

>-Ben

Don't get me wrong.  The N90 has some impressive features that I like,
(but mainly FP sync).  I just don't like to hear sweeping
generalizations about how Nikon is the "Professional's Camera", because
very few people get the benefit of Nikon Professional Services.  I also
don't see how someone can tell someone to go for a Nikon N8008s because
the N90 is so neat.

I'll followup on your wish list later tonight.

ACS
--
 ___ ___ ___ ______________________________________________________________
|   |   | __|      Democracy is not a way of getting better solutions.     |
| - | --|__ |           It's just a way to spread the blame.               |
|_|_|___|___|______________________________________________________________|
[e-mail]______________________|