Nikon F5 vs. Canon Eos 1n

Originally Posted by Rol_Lei Nut View Post
Canon lenses have a reputation for having bad bokeh

df cardwell said:

Quote:
Rubbish

Click to expand...

Well, of course anything *you* like can't be less than perfect.
;-)

This is from a Canon 50mm 1.2 posted by someone on another forum:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehill/3097049872/in/photostream/

Of course, maybe you also think mirror lenses also have good bokeh...

Go with the Canon but not the 1n. Better body build aside, the EOS 3 is a better camera. Better metering, better flash system too (E-TTL), and like the 1n it is sealed for moisture and dust. The EOS-3 provides 45 focus points, and perhaps the best metering of any SLR as of 1998 barring no other brands or models. Also, Canon has faster primes on the wide end then Nikon. The 24L and the 35L are both F1.4 and are excellent. Even the cheaper Canon primes like the 28mm F1.8, 35mm F2, 50mm F1.8 and F1.4, 85mm F1.8, and 100mm F2 are all great to excellent.

An EOS-3 in excellent condition can be had for $200 to $400 too.

Rol_Lei Nut said:

No, it means that Canon has the best marketing: Many photographers dream about owning those huge white lenses with starry eyes.

The fact is, Canon lenses have a reputation for having bad bokeh (though also Nikon is guilty of that).
Most Canon ultra-wide lenses are also not up to par (check out how many adapters are being sold to use other brand lenses on Canon cameras).

My own advice for low-light shooting would be to use a rangefinder camera. It would also be much more discreet.

Click to expand...

You spew many lies, based on hearsay, innuando, and internet mythology.

I have nearly all the L primes from 14mm through 200mm and on the wide end Canon has an excellent reputation for bokeh. No german made lens can better the Canon 35mm F1.4L in particular, and that lens along with the 24L, 50L, 85L, 135L, and 200L provide creamy smooth bokeh.

And you point to one and only one image posted on Flickr to "prove" that the bokeh of the 50L is bad? Just one image. Did it ever occur to you that you can take the best German lens in the world, that provides the best bokeh, shoot it with a digital body, then post process that image IN THE WRONG WAYS, and guess what? That image will show bad ugly bokeh. So you see, you have to consider how an image was processed. Surely you learned in college that a statistical sampling of one is not sufficient to draw an educated conclusion, yea? You ignore the fact that there are thousands, perhaps millions of images on the internet, made with the 50L that show cream excellent bokeh.

Now the 50L F1.2 is a dog because it has a focus drift when shooting close and fast in aperture...but when one learns how to compensate for it's design flaws, even that lens can produce awesome fruit. For some stupid reason Canon decided to depart from a rear floating lens design with the 50L and many think that is why it is the "worse" L prime currently sold new. However AF focus drift aside, that lens can never be accussed of providing anything less then excellent bokeh.

Portrait made with Canon 50L F1.2:

Dead Link Removed

Ah, my favorite part of any discussion -- the ad hominem section!

I use Canon at my newspaper (they bought it for us) but my personal preference is Nikon. I don't want to start any wars here but my experience over 20 years has been that Nikons are far more durable. Granted, that's for the rigours of a daily newspaper shooter but I think the notion applies to all.

The manual rewind on the F5 (which I've also owned and loved) is nice. It's just a simpler, easier camera to use.

Honestly, you gotta go with the glass. If you already are a Canon owner, then there's your answer and vice versa. If all else is equal, I like the fact that Nikon cameras can use any lenses, either earlier manual focus ones or newer AF lenses.

Colin Corneau said:

Ah, my favorite part of any discussion -- the ad hominem section!

I use Canon at my newspaper (they bought it for us) but my personal preference is Nikon. I don't want to start any wars here but my experience over 20 years has been that Nikons are far more durable. Granted, that's for the rigours of a daily newspaper shooter but I think the notion applies to all.

The manual rewind on the F5 (which I've also owned and loved) is nice. It's just a simpler, easier camera to use.

Honestly, you gotta go with the glass. If you already are a Canon owner, then there's your answer and vice versa. If all else is equal, I like the fact that Nikon cameras can use any lenses, either earlier manual focus ones or newer AF lenses.

Click to expand...

Nikon and Canon make excellent, fantastic bodies, and both provide excellent lenses, and flash systems.

The latest Nikon F6 and the latest Canon 1v film bodies are equally durable pro bodies, both providing exellent ergonamics, build quality, and features. Both systems offer excellent flashing systems too.

However news organizations use Canon kit far more then Nikon, but this fact will change very soon, now that Nikon finally has the D3, & D700 to compete with Canon, and perhaps even betters Canon.

The fact that a Nikon body can take current and prior mounts, is answered by Canon's far larger EF lens offerings. That aside, either system will provide any SLR user with the accessories and kit pieces required to get the shot.

The 1N is a good camera, but unless you need to pinch every penny, I'd look for a 1V. With a bit of patience, you should be able to find a 1V in very reasonable condition in the $400-600 range, which is insanely good value for money. I picked up a 1V earlier this year for not much more than $400 - at that price, I couldn't resist.

Compared to the F5, the 1V (like the 1N) provides a nice set of size/weight options. If you use the 1V with a 2CR5 battery in the standard grip, it's much smaller and lighter than the F5. You can add the BP-E1 battery pack to use recharageable AAs at an intermediate size and weight, and the PB-E2 booster if you want the highest frame rate at a size/weight comparable to the F5.

[Moderator's note: Reply to deleted post deleted.]

Today, Nikon and Canon both make excellent glass, providing the same image quality with just a few exceptions. On the wide side, Nikon has a slight edge, however Nikon loses it because Canon provides faster aperturers in that range (we're talking AF inproduction lenses). On the tele end, Canon has a sight edge, but really, these differences are not often pronounced.

At the end of the day, one cannot go wrong with either.

Rol_Lei Nut said:

Originally Posted by Rol_Lei Nut View Post
Canon lenses have a reputation for having bad bokeh



Well, of course anything *you* like can't be less than perfect.
;-)

Click to expand...

Damn right. Now pay attention !

The world is full of f/1.2 lenses with great bokeh, isn't it ?

Is there a better 50/1.4 than a Canon EF (other than a Summilux,
which is neither a Canon nor Nikon, the subject of the discussion) ?

The 35/2, or 85/1.8 ? No.

Come to think of it, maybe we have the causality reversed. I might LIKE them because they are good, not the other way around. The Nikon 50/1.4 is awful The AF 85/2 is not so good, but the 85/1.4 is very good indeed. The 105 and 135 DC lenses are magnificently wonderful. So too is the 180/2.8 ED-IF.

You simply cannot categorize an entire lens line for 'bokeh', there are some lenses who need to be clinically sharp and corrected,which preclude the out of of focus image being pleasing, so you pick and choose carefully. Canon and Nikon are equally good, but different. Too bad Minolta and Konica are out of the game.

Here we go again...Bokeh, 1V, Nikon vs. Canon, glass... . For an analogist just moving into AF and looking for a robust body, we should not be pointing him at the "latest and greatest and most pricey"! L-seies lenses or Nikon's are fine but only if you have a budget for them (and read it, fellas, he has told you he doesn't). Really, you do not need an EOS 1V with its humungous automation, weight and technical depth. Bokeh is not the biggest factor when considering a lens or body: first consideration is cost, and whether you are going to stay with the system or move on. Weight will also be a serious consideration. Nikon's lenses are fine. Canon's pioneering use of crystalline fluorite in L-series lenses began in 1992 and is still an extremely expensive production process. Nikon has its own facilities and makes charming optics; I use on occasion a colleague's F5 with a 300mm tele. Either marque will deliver in skilled hands, but you just do not need high levels of automation to create a photograph. It's much wiser to spend your money on quality optics and upgrade the camera body as your needs and skills progress.

The offhand commentary by fmajor regarding L-series optics could do with factually researched enlightenment: "It's obvious many of the "L" lenses are older designs and thus no longer as competitive as they once were" . What on earth is this proposed to mean?

Right. It being Sunday, I'm heading out now with my TS-Es to literally bend a few rules.

See ya!
.:: PDJ ::.

The thing is this: I want a nice, fast, usable body now, and only about two lenses. I know for a fact that I will be upgrading the lenses, especially since with either brand, they will still work with digital. I'm not planning on spending a great deal on lenses when I buy the camera, but I will start spending quite a lot higher amounts down the road.

Poisson Du Jour said:

Here we go again...Bokeh, 1V, Nikon vs. Canon, glass... . For an analogist just moving into AF and looking for a robust body, we should not be pointing him at the "latest and greatest and most pricey"! L-seies lenses or Nikon's are fine but only if you have a budget for them (and read it, fellas, he has told you he doesn't). Really, you do not need an EOS 1V with its humungous automation, weight and technical depth. Bokeh is not the biggest factor when considering a lens or body: first consideration is cost, and whether you are going to stay with the system or move on. Weight will also be a serious consideration. Nikon's lenses are fine. Canon's pioneering use of crystalline fluorite in L-series lenses began in 1992 and is still an extremely expensive production process. Nikon has its own facilities and makes charming optics; I use on occasion a colleague's F5 with a 300mm tele. Either marque will deliver in skilled hands, but you just do not need high levels of automation to create a photograph. It's much wiser to spend your money on quality optics and upgrade the camera body as your needs and skills progress.

The offhand commentary by fmajor regarding L-series optics could do with factually researched enlightenment: "It's obvious many of the "L" lenses are older designs and thus no longer as competitive as they once were" . What on earth is this proposed to mean?

Right. It being Sunday, I'm heading out now with my TS-Es to literally bend a few rules.

See ya!
.:: PDJ ::.

Click to expand...

You got it all right, Poisson. Yes, you do. However, where do you get the idea that the 1v is expensive and highly automated? A used one can be had for a song, and it can be used as manual as one wants, yea?

Still, I do approve your message.... ;-)

It seems that the OP was asking about a couple cameras, but the discussion has digressed into lens lines--which it should. However, the problem is that we're now determining for the OP what is the "best" lens line. Frankly, they both are excellent, with a large selection of dogs to step around. If the OP is looking for buying "legacy glass", not the latest/greatest, just maybe our opinions might be different. Comparing TODAY'S lenses when the OP will be buying 20 year old lenses is not valid.

Besides, if the primary criteria is lens selection, I'd suggest that limiting the camera selection to Nikon or Canon is misguided as some of the best glass available anywhere is from other manufacturers.

Back to my original suggestion, get the camera which is more comfortable and has the greatest availability of used lenses which you are interested in.

Well, I own the 1N, and use Canon digital SLRs too. If you go back farther, to the T-90, and move forward to Canon's latest and greatest, you'll find remarkable consistency in design. They're all very similar, so going from one to another body is easy. That can't be said of Nikon, but at the same time, Nikon's changes between bodies are often more significant than Canon's.

An EOS 1N and the 24-105mm f4 L, and a 50mm 1.4 for low light, will handle all that you ask for in a camera for a long, long time.

Well, I'm not gonna buy 20 year old lenses, it's just that I wouldn't buy a 50/1.2 L just to have a standard prime. Right now, I need a nice body and a solid 50. The rest will come later.
Although I should add that if someone very warmheartedly recommends a lens that is 20 years old, I will consider buying it.

I thought we left the Canon vs. Nikon wars behind a few years ago. In any case, just keep it civil, folks.

It's been mentioned that both Canon and Nikon have made lenses which are "stinkers." What are the "stinkers" among the current Canon EF primes, and why? I've been thinking about picking up an EOS 3 and starting with the 35mm/f2 and the 85mm/f1.8.

funkpilz said:

Well, I'm not gonna buy 20 year old lenses,

Click to expand...

You want a modern lens signature blending to modern film, I can't blame you.

My Nikkor primes are 85mm f1.4 AI-S, AF-DC 105mm f2.0, AF Nikkor 180mm f2.8 ED
My favorite is the 85mm f1.4 AI-S; you can get this in the AF version. But as for lens signature, the Zeiss 85mm f1.4 made for Nikon to my taste is much superior in colored images; but it's manual focus.

"LENS SIGNATURE"

Finally, somebody mentioning this. Every brand has its own signature. Unfortunately, it is extremely tough to design a modern zoom-lens for digital that maintains some semblance of uniqueness in a good way. Especially, when the arm-chair lens-designers that frequent forums are insistent that number of blades and perfectly round apertures are the only things that matter anymore.

Chris Crawford and I both use rather ancient equipment, of a specific brand, as professionals for the very reason of "lens signature". We want our pictures to look different. Why do I want to spend a fortune on brand new lenses so my pictures look exactly like everybody else's?

Different doesn't mean worse, either. Different is different. What makes a Strat. sound different than any other violin isn't that it is any more "accurate", but that the distortion is exceptionally pleasing.

Strat:
http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn...ducts/fender_american_strat_hss_s1_s12229.jpg
Strad:
http://tbn2.google.com/images?q=tbn...//www.maestronet.com/christies/TAFT-STRAD.jpg

They do have different signatures.

Lee

We can all tell you why you should pick Nikon and why you should pick Canon, but you are going to just have to figure it out through the act of shooting. As I stated before, the main difference applies to those who shoot a lot with fast fixed-length auto focus lenses, for whom Canon is the obvious choice. If you use zooms, the brands are identical for all intents and purposes, with a few exceptions which only matter for those shooting certain subjects (e.g. 200-400mm f/4 zoom, which Canon does not have). Quite honestly, if you can't look at the lens systems and decide which one would best serve you, you should just start with a more inexpensive camera with one normal lens and see where it takes you. I rely on fast primes, so have picked Canon. If all I used was zooms, and I did not need fast autofocus lenses, I would go Nikon, for their backwards compatibility.

My very unscientific opinion:

- in the pro lens arena, both companies are exceptional. One has an advantage over the other here and there, but overall the pro lenses from both marks are extremely good.
- Nikon tends to be better in the lower echelon of gear. While there is the odd Nikkor that isn't great, most low-end Nikkors (and particularly since the autofocus era) are extremely good. A good case in point is the exceptional AF 35-80/4-5.6D (first version), which was a dirt-cheap lens that has exceptional optics. I own one unapologetically. The results really are as good as my pro lenses can manage, if the slower maximum aperture isn't an issue. The Canon consumer-grade lenses tend not to be as good. They aren't awful, but they aren't as good in general.
- the bodies are a very subjective call. I prefer the handling of the Nikons (higher eyepoint, useful for eyeglass wearers, is one reason, but I like the control layout of most of the cameras). The Canons have a different style to them. Some prefer them, some like me don't. It's not better or worse, just different. There are some quirks in the pattern (the Nikon F70 comes to mind, which again some love but most hate).
- the backward lens compatibility is a double-edged sword. Canon's is much simpler. Autofocus lenses work on all bodies. There is no loss of capability, as long as the body can support the feature. In other words, any modern Canon EF lens will mount on an old Canon body and can do everything you'd expect it could do. (I don't think image stabilization is backwards compatible - I might be wrong on that point - but you get full AF.) Nikon's compatibility is far more complex. In some ways it's worse (the AF-G lenses are of limited utility on older autofocus bodies and essentially useless on older manual-focus bodies) and in some ways it's much better (many modern Nikon bodies work very well with manual-focus lenses, which lets you use classic lenses like the 105/2.5 or save money by making your 16/2.8 fisheye an AI-S instead of an AF-D). For me, Nikon's flexibility is better (and I've chosen bodies that work well with all of the lenses I have, which range from AI-converted 1970s lenses to a couple of modern AF-S lenses), but there is a much steeper learning curve.
- the pro Nikon bodies are generally more flexible than the pro Canon bodies. With the exception of the F6, the Nikons have interchangeable viewfinders. Many won't take advantage of this but some will. Even being able to remove your finder alone is useful, if you have to shoot, e.g., over the heads of people - turn your camera upside down, prism off, and shoot with your arms fully extended over your head. You can see - not well, but better than you can with a viewfinder.

Nikon fell behind for awhile early in the AF race. The F4 is an incredible body but it is not a great autofocus body. The EOS cameras of the day eclipsed it rapidly. It took Nikon several years to catch up. Nowadays the race is neck-and-neck in most regards so it is a question of what lenses and bodies you want to use.

Ultimately both are blown away by a simple Bronica or Hasselblad, so... .

PhotoJim said:

Ultimately both are blown away by a simple Bronica or Hasselblad, so... .

Click to expand...

...Or a Toyo 45 A II with Schneider 90mm Apo Componon... my newest toy...
( But it's not the end of 35mm for me just yet.).

funkpilz said:

Well, I'm not gonna buy 20 year old lenses, it's just that I wouldn't buy a 50/1.2 L just to have a standard prime. Right now, I need a nice body and a solid 50. The rest will come later.
Although I should add that if someone very warmheartedly recommends a lens that is 20 years old, I will consider buying it.

Click to expand...

No, I wouldn't recommend a 20 year old lens.
Today's primes and zooms are sensational compared to optics of 20 years ago when zooms had a nasty reputation and primes were often fuzzy (you'll notice I'm not naming names because in my experience performance failings were not limited to just one; it went right across the systems of the day).

One "20 year old lens" you should avoid is an early Tamron 'adaptall'. Optically these things were just bloody awful yet I continue to see some battered specimens in dealer second hand windows along more technically competent (and fondly recalled) optics from the marques.

Poisson Du Jour said:

No, I wouldn't recommend a 20 year old lens.
... 20 years ago when zooms had a nasty reputation and primes were often fuzzy

Click to expand...

I beg to disagree, I own a Nikkor pre-AI 50mm auto HC f/2 and I might admit, wide open has slight light falloff and vignette, really nothing special and I have seen worse in modern computer designed optics.

This optic is from 1974 and I can tell you, side by side with some modern 50's, you would be stunned with the results this wonderful optic can deliver.


Wonderful old optics can be add for near nothing these days, this Nikkor cost me $50 USD, a true bargain IMHO.


Cheers



André

A few Tamron Adaptall II lenses, though, were quite good. The Tamron SP 90/2.5 outperformed the comparable Leitz lens of its day on some tests. The Tamron SP 35-105/2.8 ASL constant-aperture zoom is another fine performer. There have also been a number of professional nature and sports shooters using the Tamron SP 300/2.8.

In general, I don't think that many of today's prime lenses are that much better than the best prime lenses of the 1980s, except at the wide end of the spectrum, and of course in AF performance and with new features like image stabilization. It's been a fairly mature technology for some time. If one likes manual focus, the older lenses often have better build quality. Today's zooms of course are much better.

If I were in the market for new prime lenses for a 35mm SLR, I'd be looking mainly at the latest Zeiss lenses coming out in various mounts.