russ_arcuri1

FYI:

<a href="http://www.dcresource.com/specials/PMA2000/index.html"> http://www.dcresource.com/specials/PMA2000/index.html</a><p>

Russ Arcuri

Two comments: 1. I believe the A2's spot meter is 3.5%, not 2.5%. 2.

3.5% is larger than a lot of people think -- it's delineated by the

smaller faint circle visible in the A2 finder, which most people think

is far too large to be 3.5%. Nonetheless, it is 3.5% of the area of

the frame. (Remember too that you're not seeing the whole frame with

the A2 viewfinder.) The original Elan has a 6.5% partial meter; I

thought that was too big. The Elan II's 9.5% meter would be way too

big IMO.

Sean -- I think what Norman means is that because he can more easily

see the entire frame with the high-eyepoint Nikon finders, he has

better control of what ends up on the frame. I don't think he's

implying what you think he's implying. Norman should correct me if my

guess is wrong.

I have taken double exposures with my Canon EOS Elan which required two

different lenses. Turning the camera off while changing lenses would

have ruined the double exposure. No problems to speak of. Perhaps

this is different with the Nikon mount -- I'm not sure.

You can change lenses mid-roll. The light entering the body through

the lens when you're focusing, metering, etc. doesn't get past the

shutter, so neither will the light that enters the body when a lens is

detached.

Dave -- I don't want the 42 so much because it's a 42... I was just

thinking of what would make for the best <i>low light</i> lens. That

means a lens with a wide aperture <i>and</i> image stabilization. I

picked 42mm because I already have 35mm and 50mm lenses, and what the

heck, why not split the difference? At least then I'm not duplicating

focal lengths. True, I think 42 could be useful for other reasons (see

above), but the main points here are very wide aperture and image

stabilization.

You won't find me disagreeing with you about price -- the 24/2.8 tilt/

shift is very expensive. But since price is the only problem, it is

something that you could overcome. Save up a little longer, win a

sweepstakes, sell a child... :)<p>

Seriously, though... the lens I proposed doesn't actually exist -- and

neither do the first two you proposed, so our chances of actually

getting one of them are effectively nil. Technically, you <i>could</i>

own the 24 if you really, really wanted to.<p>

Is it even possible to build and sell a complex lens like the 24/2.8

tilt/shift for less than $500? For some reason I doubt it. If we're

going to be unrealistic about pricing, I'll just lower the cost of my

dream lens (the 42/1.4 IS) to $19.95... ;-)

Marcus -- one of your lenses exists already... the 24/2.8 shift

(actually a 24/2.8 tilt/shift). Very highly touted. The only problem

is the price... it's way more expensive than $500.

I'd want 42mm for one selfish reason and a couple legitimate (I think)

reasons.<p>

I've already got a 35/2.0 and a 50/1.8. Many times I find the 50 just

a hair long or the 35 a hair wide for a given application. So I,

personally, would like a 42, the "happy medium."<p>

Some legitimate reasons:<ul>

<li>My limited understanding of optical design leads me to believe a

42/1.4 IS could be built about the same size and weight as a plain-jane

50/1.4 -- which is about as big and heavy as I think a typical user

would want to carry around for low-light work.

<li>A 42mm lens would be unique enough to stand out against the other

options -- there are people who would buy it just because it was

different. (Makes financial sense for Canon, IMO... it's a niche lens,

but maybe with more panache than a 50/1.4 IS would have, if you get my

drift...)

<li>It would be a bit easier to handhold a 42mm lens at long shutter

speeds than it would be to handhold a 50, but with a niche lens like

this every little bit would count.

</ul>

What I'd like to see, and would buy right away if it existed: a Canon 42/1.4 IS lens. 42mm because it's about halfway between 35mm and 50mm; f/1.4 for low light, handheld work; and IS for REALLY low light, handheld work.<p>

With Canon's 50/1.4 running about $350, I'd hope the 42/1.4 IS would come in at less than $500. Knowing Canon, probably not -- it'd probably be closer in cost to the 35/1.4 L. So I'd have to revise my earlier statement: I'd buy one right away <i>if it was less than $500.

</i><p>

Still, I can dream, can't I?

Aaarrgghhh! I don't know what's wrong with me today. That should

read, "...if you want a 180 degree fisheye..." That's it, I'm done

posting for today. This cold I'm suffering through must be affecting

my brain.

Sorry -- I should have said, "...if you want a 360 degree fisheye, go

Nikon..."

I wrote the review of the Canon 28-105 on photo.net. As is apparent if

you've read the review, I think it's a truly great value in a general-

purpose zoom. I even commented in the review about how I was surprised

that Nikon didn't offer a similar lens (at the time).<p>

That said, I agree with what some of the others have said: it doesn't

make much sense to decide which camera brand to go with based on the

performance of a mid-range general purpose zoom. It's entirely likely

that the Canon will outperform the Nikon in some limited instances, the

Nikon will outperform the Canon in other instances, and you probably

won't be able to tell the difference in the majority of your shooting

situations.<p>

You should probably pick which brand to go with based on which feels

better in your hands, or which brand offers the unique lenses you feel

you'll want to use later. i.e. if you want a full frame fisheye, go

Nikon. If you want a T/S lens, go Canon. etc...

One of the things I've become convinced of is that the Canon flash

system is NOT the terrible beast it's

been made out to be. I know that from a theoretical design standpoint

the Nikon flash metering is more elegant, and it really appeals to the

technoweenie in me. Quite simply, it's done right.<p>

Many people have translated this to mean that Nikon's flash system is

so superior to Canon's that the results gotten with Canon's system are

crap. Nothing could be further from the truth.<p>

I'm not even talking about E-TTL, either. I'm talking about Canon's

regular TTL metering. It works, and works very well for people who

bother to read the manuals before using it. Glen Johnson (a regular

contributor to photo.net) has been trying to convince people of this

for a few years now but it appears his arguments have fallen on deaf

ears.<p>

I readily admit that I did not completely understand how Canon's flash

algorithms worked when I first started shooting flash stuff with my

Elan and A2. I occasionally got poorly exposed flash shots; I assumed

this was the result of Canon's "inferior" flash system. Glen later

managed to convince me that this wasn't the case. It's important to

remember that the focus/recompose/shoot trick can screw up the flash

exposure. If your subject is under one of the side sensors in an A2,

for example, you should manually select that sensor rather than

focusing with the center sensor and recomposing. The flash metering is

linked to the selected focus sensor and will work properly if you work

the camera properly, so to speak.<p>

Since following Glen's advice, I have never (read that again: NEVER)

gotten an improperly-exposed flash shot. Even though Canon's flash

system may not be as conceptually interesting or advanced as Nikon's,

the system is capable of (and will deliver) professional quality

results in the hands of someone who knows how to use it.<p>

On a different note, Mark's friend was obviously impressed with the

cordless E-TTL operation of the new Canon flash. This is impressive;

only Minolta's wireless system offers similar functionality. But for

those of us who can't afford $500 flash units and the EOS-3 to drive

them, the old standard TTL metering works fine.

Louis -- A couple comments. First, I was not commenting on Nikon vs.

Canon; I was commenting on what I feel are the most useful new camera

technologies available now, regardless of the manufacturer. The Nikon

engineers must realize that image stabilization is a very useful

technology, since they've gotten patents for their use in a macro lens.

And the RGB meter is undeniably something useful that Canon doesn't

offer.<p>

Second, you state (as if it were a fact) that the F5 and F100 are

better than Canon's offerings. This is nonsense -- one camera can not

be "better" than another unless you tie it to a specific task. For

example, the Nikon F5 is the best camera if you're looking for maximum

frame rate with focus tracking. The Canon EOS-1nRS is the best camera

if you're looking for maximum frame rate period. The Canon Rebel G is

the best camera if you're looking for the lightest camera to carry.<p>

Discussions of which camera is "best" <i>in general</i> are a waste of

time. Discussions of which camera is best suited to a given task are

much more useful.

Advancements that I feel are truly useful:<p>

image stabilization. No single technology will do as much to improve

the sharpness of handheld photos, even at faster shutter speeds. IS

has a more direct effect on image quality than anything else on this

list. Unless you ALWAYS put your camera on a tripod, you can benefit

from IS.<p>

eye control focus. Laugh if you want. I've used it before -- it works

and works well. (Maybe not for every user...) No real effect on image

quality (you can focus other ways), but a huge effect on user interface

to the camera.<p>

RGB meter. Again, no real effect on image quality, unless you're in

auto mode all the time. But it does make exposure decisions a lot

easier for the photographer. You can trust the AE modes in more

situations.

A couple of points. The F5 was not using the screwdriver blade to

drive older lenses, as Stanley implies. It was using it's electronic

focus control to control the AF-S (electronic focusing, similar to

Canon's USM) lenses.<p>

Honestly, I don't understand why anyone (other than possibly sports-car

racing photographers) would even care about this test. They tracked a

car moving at constant velocity, using the center focus point only --

even on cameras equipped with multiple focus points. How is this

supposed to relate to anything in the real world anyway?<p>

And even if you do accept the results as being valid in the real world,

what is this supposed to determine? Think about it -- the EOS 1n

snapped 10 pictures in 2 seconds, 8 of which were in focus, and this is

considered SLOW??? Anyone who wants to get rid of their crappy old

EOS-1n and EF 300/2.8 USM or 300/4 USM is welcome to send them to me.

I'll be sure to only use them for non-moving subjects, like landscapes

;-)