Did the Canon boat sink?
bowser
Still no stock I can find.
U*U
"bowser" <w...@tisgoing.on> wrote in message
news:49a2b47f$0$5041$ec3e...@news.usenetmonster.com...
> Just wondering where all the 5D IIs are, along with the extra batteries?
> Still no stock I can find.
them. In Ontario, Canada the Sony A900 is exclusive to Henry's.
IRISH GENE
C J Campbell
> Just wondering where all the 5D IIs are, along with the extra
> batteries? Still no stock I can find.
I saw several in the hands of pros at WPPI.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor
bowser
blame them.
bowser
"C J Campbell" <christophercam...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2009022310212275249-christophercampbellremovethis@hotmailcom...
> On 2009-02-23 06:38:32 -0800, "bowser" <w...@tisgoing.on> said:
>
>> Just wondering where all the 5D IIs are, along with the extra batteries?
>> Still no stock I can find.
>
> I saw several in the hands of pros at WPPI.
That's good, but I need to see some on the shelves of stores. What's WPPI?
Dave Cohen
I never heard of it either. First google hit says it's Wedding &
Portrait Photographers International. There's a group for everyone, mine
is AARP. That stands for Aging Americans Residing in Poverty or
something like that.
Dave Cohen
SMS
> Just wondering where all the 5D IIs are, along with the extra batteries?
> Still no stock I can find.
Demand is extremely high. Amazon says 2-4 weeks, but I've seen that turn
into months sometimes. OTOH, if you want a Nikon D700 you can get one
right away.
Focus
It's called "logistics" ;-)
You'll be much better of with the D700 anyway...
--
----
Focus
Flying with Windows 7
bowser
"Focus" <do...@mail.me> wrote in message
news:yv-dnVBp3-SnUT7U...@novis.pt...
If I bought a D700 body, I wouldn't be able to produce a single exposure.
The only gear I have that would work with it would be the CF cards. I'm not
buying any camera that can't use my 24-105.
C J Campbell
Wedding and Portrait Photographers International. The annual convention
and trade show was in Las Vegas last week.
Great stuff if you like looking at the latest in wedding albums,
portrait backgrounds, etc.
All the camera manufacturers were there, as well as major retailers
like B&H Photo, Adorama, Samy's, and Midwest Photo.
Rich
news:49a3e981$0$5101$ec3e...@news.usenetmonster.com:
Canon legacy systems work well for the company. Anyone considering dumping
out of Nikon ends up taking a bath because of the poor value-holding of
most Canon lenses. A great incentive to stick with them.
John McWilliams
>
> Canon legacy systems work well for the company. Anyone considering dumping
> out of Nikon ends up taking a bath because of the poor value-holding of
> most Canon lenses. A great incentive to stick with them.
You wanna try a re-write?
Sheesh. Canon-basher can't even get his antecedents right.
--
lsmft
SMS
> If I bought a D700 body, I wouldn't be able to produce a single
> exposure. The only gear I have that would work with it would be the CF
> cards. I'm not buying any camera that can't use my 24-105.
The problem with the D700 is that it's too low resolution for most
professionals. It's a good prosumer camera, and a good entry into the FF
market for Nikon, but they still have a long way to go to catch Canon.
The good thing about Canon is that their lenses tend to hold their value
far better than Nikon lenses, especially the older lenses, since any EOS
lens will work on any EOS camera (not the case with Nikon F lenses).
Look at the used lens prices from some of the dealers of used equipment,
the difference is stark. In fact I've seen some of the used Canon lenses
going for almost as much as the same lens costs new from a discount
retailer like Amazon or Buydig (though that assumes that they actually
are selling those used lenses for the asking price!).
SMS
LOL, and that's why used Canon L lenses are so expensive, no one wants
to ever sell them.
bowzer
"Rich" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:aPGdnbya6dTIlznU...@giganews.com...
I would question the intelligence of anyone with a Nikon camera using Canon
lenses.
SMS
> I would question the intelligence of anyone with a Nikon camera using
> Canon lenses.
Indeed, since while Nikon lenses can be used on Canon cameras with a
converter, there's no way to use a Canon lens on a Nikon camera because
the Nikon lens mount is so much smaller (which causes Nikon problems in
other ways as well as has been pointed out here many times).
I know when Canon came out with their full frame digital cameras you
could buy gently used Nikon digital bodies and lenses very, very
cheaply as professionals and prosumers moved en-masse from Nikon to
Canon (at that time Nikon insisted that there was no need for full frame
and that they had no plans to come out with full frame, but this was
more due to their lack of a full frame sensor than anything else).
Craigslist from back then was full of ads for D70 and D100 outfits and
there were some amazing bargains to be had. Ditto for the used lenses at
places like B&H. Now the fire sale on used Nikon glass is over since
pretty much everyone that wanted to switch already has done so, and
since Nikon is almost caught up with Canon in all but the high end
professional full frame bodies, and super high end lenses.
Rich
@flpi147.ffdc.sbc.com:
Canon's advantage in lenses is minimal now. They have cheap f4 teles/zooms
and some unique lenses like that 5x macro unit.
Rich
@flpi150.ffdc.sbc.com:
> bowser wrote:
>
>> If I bought a D700 body, I wouldn't be able to produce a single
>> exposure. The only gear I have that would work with it would be the CF
>> cards. I'm not buying any camera that can't use my 24-105.
>
> The problem with the D700 is that it's too low resolution for most
> professionals. It's a good prosumer camera, and a good entry into the FF
> market for Nikon, but they still have a long way to go to catch Canon.
>
> The good thing about Canon is that their lenses tend to hold their value
> far better than Nikon lenses, especially the older lenses, since any EOS
> lens will work on any EOS camera (not the case with Nikon F lenses).
> Look at the used lens prices from some of the dealers of used equipment,
> the difference is stark.
And yet I've seen some fast Canon glass going for peanuts. Best thing
would be to look at Ebay past pricing for a handful of lenses and compare
it to Nikon's lenses. Canon still has a huge user base so demand alone
(lens quality aside) would mean they "should" hold some value.
But Canon users are also (because of Canon DSLR's ability to mount other
brands) responsible for huge prices on some pretty old Olympus, Zeiss and
Nikon glass.
David J Taylor
[]
> Indeed, since while Nikon lenses can be used on Canon cameras with a
> converter, there's no way to use a Canon lens on a Nikon camera
> because the Nikon lens mount is so much smaller (which causes Nikon
> problems in other ways as well as has been pointed out here many
> times).
"so much" smaller? A few millimetres in forty, perhaps
The Nikon lens mount has not caused me, nor many other photographers, any
problems whatsoever in lens selection - Nikon have a more than complete
lens range for my usage.
David
J. Clarke
"David J Taylor" <david-...@blueyonder.neither-this-bit.nor-this.co.uk>
wrote in message news:jnupl.42$Lc7...@text.news.virginmedia.com...
> SMS wrote:
> []
>> Indeed, since while Nikon lenses can be used on Canon cameras with a
>> converter, there's no way to use a Canon lens on a Nikon camera
>> because the Nikon lens mount is so much smaller (which causes Nikon
>> problems in other ways as well as has been pointed out here many
>> times).
>
> "so much" smaller? A few millimetres in forty, perhaps
Further the problem is that in the relevant dimension (flange distance) the
Nikon mount is _larger_.
> The Nikon lens mount has not caused me, nor many other photographers, any
> problems whatsoever in lens selection - Nikon have a more than complete
> lens range for my usage.
When you see brainless Nikon bashing it's generally the result of religious
fervor. Best to just tune it out and let the cultists go engage in a
circle-jerk.
SMS
> SMS wrote:
> []
>> Indeed, since while Nikon lenses can be used on Canon cameras with a
>> converter, there's no way to use a Canon lens on a Nikon camera
>> because the Nikon lens mount is so much smaller (which causes Nikon
>> problems in other ways as well as has been pointed out here many
>> times).
>
> "so much" smaller? A few millimetres in forty, perhaps
>
> The Nikon lens mount has not caused me, nor many other photographers,
> any problems whatsoever in lens selection
This may be true. It's only a few high end professional lenses that the
Nikon mount is not suitable for.
David J Taylor
[]
> This may be true. It's only a few high end professional lenses that
> the Nikon mount is not suitable for.
Examples?
SMS
It's very expensive to make an f/1.2 or f/1.0 lens with such a small
diameter mount. It's not impossible, but Nikon has chosen to not bring
such lenses to market because they'd be priced too high.
I.e., look at the Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L. Nikon might be able to do a
similar lens, but it would be tough, and it would be very costly. Ditto
for the Canon EF 50mm f/1.0L.
Admittedly, only a few professionals have a need for such fast lenses,
but the need does exist. But it also affects lens pricing on other
lenses as well, which is why equivalent quality Nikon lenses are usually
more expensive than the Canon counterpart.
nospam
<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> The problem with the D700 is that it's too low resolution for most
> professionals. It's a good prosumer camera, and a good entry into the FF
> market for Nikon, but they still have a long way to go to catch Canon.
the d700 is a mini d3 with very decent build quality, much better than
the 5d mark ii, which dpreview states isn't weather sealed all that
well and on michael reichmann's antartica trip, 25% of the 5dii's
failed.
> The good thing about Canon is that their lenses tend to hold their value
> far better than Nikon lenses, especially the older lenses,
especially the canon fd lenses!! those really held their value. not.
nospam
<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> >> This may be true. It's only a few high end professional lenses that
> >> the Nikon mount is not suitable for.
> >
> > Examples?
>
> It's very expensive to make an f/1.2 or f/1.0 lens with such a small
> diameter mount. It's not impossible, but Nikon has chosen to not bring
> such lenses to market because they'd be priced too high.
nor canon, who discontinued the 50 f/1 because it didn't sell (nor was
it all that good).
> I.e., look at the Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L. Nikon might be able to do a
> similar lens, but it would be tough, and it would be very costly. Ditto
> for the Canon EF 50mm f/1.0L.
nikon has an 85mm f/1.4. the difference is insignificant.
> Admittedly, only a few professionals have a need for such fast lenses,
> but the need does exist. But it also affects lens pricing on other
> lenses as well, which is why equivalent quality Nikon lenses are usually
> more expensive than the Canon counterpart.
bull.
David J Taylor
> David J Taylor wrote:
>> SMS wrote:
>> []
>>> This may be true. It's only a few high end professional lenses that
>>> the Nikon mount is not suitable for.
>>
>> Examples?
>
> It's very expensive to make an f/1.2 or f/1.0 lens with such a small
> diameter mount. It's not impossible, but Nikon has chosen to not bring
> such lenses to market because they'd be priced too high.
Nikon had a 58mm f/1.2, IIRC.
> I.e., look at the Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L. Nikon might be able to do a
> similar lens, but it would be tough, and it would be very costly.
> Ditto for the Canon EF 50mm f/1.0L.
With today's digital sensors having such high ISO ratings, I think that
the need for such lenses is likely to be vanishingly near to zero.
> Admittedly, only a few professionals have a need for such fast lenses,
> but the need does exist. But it also affects lens pricing on other
> lenses as well, which is why equivalent quality Nikon lenses are
> usually more expensive than the Canon counterpart.
I find that both manufacturers produce similar-priced and similar-quality
lenses. Of course, you will always find exceptions.
David
SMS
> With today's digital sensors having such high ISO ratings, I think that
> the need for such lenses is likely to be vanishingly near to zero.
It's still always advantageous to use the lowest ISO setting possible.
> I find that both manufacturers produce similar-priced and
> similar-quality lenses. Of course, you will always find exceptions.
I haven't compared all the lenses of course, but I have experience with
some. I.e. compare the extreme wide-angle Canon 10-22 EF-s with the
Nikon 12-24mm f/4G ED. On Amazon, the Canon is $710, the Nikon is $925
(I paid about $610 for my 10-22 EF-s when Dell had a sale).
As Ken Rockwell writes about the Canon 10-22, "This is a great lens.
It's so great it makes me want to swap over to Canon from Nikon, because
it's better than my favorite Nikon 12 - 24 mm lens. It's better because
it has less distortion and costs less."
Why is the Nikon lens so much more expensive? It's possible that they
just figure that no one is going to switch systems based on a lens that
costs 30% more, so the price it at what the market will bear. But it
could also be related to the manufacturing cost.
Part of the reason Canon lenses tend to retain more of their value on
the used market than Nikon lenses is because they aren't priced so much
higher to begin with.
rwalker
<david-...@blueyonder.neither-this-bit.nor-this.co.uk> wrote:
snip
>
>I find that both manufacturers produce similar-priced and similar-quality
>lenses. Of course, you will always find exceptions.
>
>David
True, but the religious wars will go on anyway.
David J Taylor
As I said: "you will always find exceptions.".
And do you really think that the noise between ISO 1000 and ISO 1360 (i.e.
between f/1.2 and f/1.4) is /that/ noticeable?
David
David J Taylor
That's true enough!
David
SMS
No, religious wars are based on beliefs, not facts.
SMS
Interesting that you're choosing ISO 1000 as a baseline.
David J Taylor
[]
>> And do you really think that the noise between ISO 1000 and ISO 1360
>> (i.e. between f/1.2 and f/1.4) is /that/ noticeable?
>
> Interesting that you're choosing ISO 1000 as a baseline.
I'm sure the same argument would apply between ISO 100 and ISO 136, except
that these are not the sort of ISOs one might need to use if an f/1.2 lens
was needed.
Interesting that you didn't answer my question.
David
SMS
Interesting that you had to qualify your statement with "/that/" because
that really makes it a subjective call. Is it noticeable? Definitely. Is
it /that/ noticeable? Depends on the individual.
Robert Coe
Some 3rd-party manufacturers (Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, ...) have lenses that
come in versions for both Canon and Nikon mounts. Are the Nikon versions more
expensive, and/or do they produce more distortion? If so, that would tend to
support Steve's argument. If not, it might suggest that Steve's argument, if
it's valid at all, applies only at the very high end, where the 3rd-party
vendors don't compete.
Bob
Bob
nospam
<b...@1776.COM> wrote:
> Some 3rd-party manufacturers (Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, ...) have lenses that
> come in versions for both Canon and Nikon mounts. Are the Nikon versions more
> expensive, and/or do they produce more distortion?
no.
> If so, that would tend to
> support Steve's argument. If not, it might suggest that Steve's argument, if
> it's valid at all, applies only at the very high end, where the 3rd-party
> vendors don't compete.
nikon and canon make a variety of lenses from excellent to cheapo. not
surprisingly, the excellent lenses retain their value while the not so
good lenses do not, and in the used market, the best lenses can be
found used for close to what they sell for new.
sms is just spewing his usual canon is perfect nikon sucks bias.
bowser
"SMS" <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:V0Gpl.8231$%54....@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com...
> David J Taylor wrote:
>
>> With today's digital sensors having such high ISO ratings, I think that
>> the need for such lenses is likely to be vanishingly near to zero.
>
> It's still always advantageous to use the lowest ISO setting possible.
>
>> I find that both manufacturers produce similar-priced and similar-quality
>> lenses. Of course, you will always find exceptions.
>
> I haven't compared all the lenses of course, but I have experience with
> some. I.e. compare the extreme wide-angle Canon 10-22 EF-s with the Nikon
> 12-24mm f/4G ED. On Amazon, the Canon is $710, the Nikon is $925 (I paid
> about $610 for my 10-22 EF-s when Dell had a sale).
>
> As Ken Rockwell writes about the Canon 10-22, "This is a great lens. It's
> so great it makes me want to swap over to Canon from Nikon, because it's
> better than my favorite Nikon 12 - 24 mm lens. It's better because it has
> less distortion and costs less."
You just lost me. Anyone who quotes KR will always lose me. Ken's a moron.
SMS
>> As Ken Rockwell writes about the Canon 10-22, "This is a great lens.
>> It's so great it makes me want to swap over to Canon from Nikon,
>> because it's better than my favorite Nikon 12 - 24 mm lens. It's
>> better because it has less distortion and costs less."
>
> You just lost me. Anyone who quotes KR will always lose me. Ken's a moron.
Ken is extremely biased towards Nikon, and yes it's true that he
sometimes makes moronic statements in that regard. He swore there would
be no D70s (not D70 plural, but the s revision). He insisted that Nikon
would never go to full frame, but that was because he was so upset that
Canon was gaining so many converts from Nikon with their full frame
models. For him to ever say anything positive about Canon is astounding,
and it would have to be regarding something where it's incontrovertible.
nospam
<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> > You just lost me. Anyone who quotes KR will always lose me. Ken's a moron.
>
> Ken is extremely biased towards Nikon, and yes it's true that he
> sometimes makes moronic statements in that regard. He swore there would
> be no D70s (not D70 plural, but the s revision). He insisted that Nikon
> would never go to full frame, but that was because he was so upset that
> Canon was gaining so many converts from Nikon with their full frame
> models. For him to ever say anything positive about Canon is astounding,
> and it would have to be regarding something where it's incontrovertible.
hardly. he says stuff to get a reaction and drive his web traffic. if
what he says happens to be pro-canon, so be it. it could be true, it
could be made up. with him, there's really no easy way to be sure.
<http://kenrockwell.com/about.htm>
"If you don't know me personally, then you can't possibly have any idea
of what I mean when you read my text. "
Paul Furman
> SMS wrote:
>> David J Taylor wrote:
>>> SMS wrote:
>>> []
>>>> This may be true. It's only a few high end professional lenses that
>>>> the Nikon mount is not suitable for.
>>>
>>> Examples?
>>
>> It's very expensive to make an f/1.2 or f/1.0 lens with such a small
>> diameter mount. It's not impossible, but Nikon has chosen to not bring
>> such lenses to market because they'd be priced too high.
>
> Nikon had a 58mm f/1.2, IIRC.
And more affordable 55/1.2 & 50/1.2.
>> I.e., look at the Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L. Nikon might be able to do a
>> similar lens, but it would be tough, and it would be very costly.
>> Ditto for the Canon EF 50mm f/1.0L.
>
> With today's digital sensors having such high ISO ratings, I think that
> the need for such lenses is likely to be vanishingly near to zero.
Still useful for the 'look' but yeah, not a huge difference.
>> Admittedly, only a few professionals have a need for such fast lenses,
>> but the need does exist. But it also affects lens pricing on other
>> lenses as well, which is why equivalent quality Nikon lenses are
>> usually more expensive than the Canon counterpart.
>
> I find that both manufacturers produce similar-priced and
> similar-quality lenses. Of course, you will always find exceptions.
>
> David
--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com
all google groups messages filtered due to spam
Paul Furman
> ...Canon ...lenses tend to hold their value
> far better than Nikon lenses..
I don't believe that is correct.
...never even heard that claim before.
Petri Lopia
> Just wondering where all the 5D IIs are, along with the extra batteries?
> Still no stock I can find.
I have on here... Got it about week ago.
--
Nature, StormChase, Lightning, Galapagos, Kenya, Ecuador photos:
http://www.petrilopia.net/
SMS
> bowser wrote:
>> Just wondering where all the 5D IIs are, along with the extra
>> batteries? Still no stock I can find.
>
> I have on here... Got it about week ago.
They seem to be back in stock now everywhere. There was a big shortage
when they first came out because so many Nikon owners were switching
over to the 5D Mark II, but now that most of them have completed the
transition production is keeping up with demand.
David J Taylor
Oh, you are so amusing at times!
Or is that "funny"? <G>
David