Re: Nikon vs Canon and the whole dSLR thing
- From: James Z <blocker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2007 17:47:48 GMT
On Sun, 7 Oct 2007 09:28:24 -0700, "flambe" <fac187@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I just returned from 3 weeks in Europe and Africa.
An informal impression is that Nikon dSLRs significantly outnumbered Canon
dSLRs on those of us touristos schlepping these heavy beasties. That really
surprised me as my impression has been that Canon outsells Nikon.
Most Nikon dSLRs had the 18-200 VR attached and were being carried by
Europeans.
Although I saw one older Japanese gentleman with an 800mm howitzer hanging
from his neck attached to his Canon.
I envied the lens but not the neck pain.
Despite my lifetime investment in higher end cameras and glass I am
seriously thinking that on my next trek I am only going to carry an image
stabilized long zoom EVF type that records in raw.
Who is going to see the pictures that most of us take anyway apart from
friends and family? Personally and aesthetically satisfying results can be
had without having to schlep pounds and pounds of gear . . .
It may be time to find my old Ebay account number and empty the closet.
You are not alone in this thinking and decision. I've read many threads in many
forums in the last few months with the same wave of thought.
The only reasons we bought SLRs was to be able to get accurate framing with the
through-the-lens viewfinder. Being able to see what the film will see,
especially important for macro photography. Also to get the increased ranges in
lenses that were eventually made available. The only reason we switched to 35mm
film was that film grain size decreased and ASA (ISO) ratings increased enough
to make it acceptable. Those advances made in the movie industry. (Don't most
people know that those sprocket holes on the sides of their 35mm film was
originally used to feed it through a movie-projector?) The only reason
interchangeable lens systems were made was because not enough zoom-range could
be fit into one single lens. Zoom lenses didn't even exist before then. You
usually had 3 lenses (if lucky), wide, normal, and short telephoto for
portraiture. Remember when a 210mm f.l. f/6.3 for an SLR was a WOW lens? This
was before multi-coating was invented, mind you. You were just happy to have
that much reach. All that flare only showed everyone how many lens elements you
had and how expensive your lens must be. You took pride in using that lens-flare
to your advantage. (Seen today as lens-flare editor plugins to try to recreate
the charming(?) defects from the "good ol' days".) People would laugh at that
today if it was promoted as a selling-point on a digital camera. Image quality,
while important, was more dependent on what film we happened to peel through the
back of the camera than the lens we could afford.
Before that we originally moved to SLRs for their smaller size and because we
didn't want to lug around that bellowed camera that didn't even allow us to
accurately see what was going to be on the film anymore, not since view-camera
days anyway. When it required a covered-wagon to haul everything needed to take
few dozen images per trip. It was always a matter of convenience and quality
plus versatility compromises. Today people are finding that we don't need the
interchangeable lenses anymore if enough zoom range comes all included in one
lens and the quality and light-grasp is kept high enough for our intended
purposes. You can get the quality plus the versatility that you need in a very
small compromise today. Nostalgia is nice, but not when it's holding you back.
Not many people today take a covered-wagon with three-dozen plates of glass and
all darkroom supplies to document their vacation, except as an interesting
exercise to experience true hardship firsthand. Why isn't the dSLR gang
clamoring for the return of the covered-wagon, view camera, flash-powder
explosions, and glass plates with film-grain large enough to see with the naked
eye? It was bigger, it cost more, it's more impressive, it must be better. :-)
What's that old saying? Don't live in the past, there's no future in it.
Remember holding next shot's flash-bulb in your mouth to wet the contacts before
putting it in the socket to make sure it would work? Then still keeping your
toes crossed (all fingers are in use, sorry) because you're not sure if it'll
fire this time? That was so much better than those silly and small xenon strobes
that they finally invented. I enjoyed picking the plastic-covered glass bits out
of my pockets after having sat down on 8 of them again. Yeah, give me that
again. I bet most people today don't even realize why it is called a "BULB"
shutter setting on their cameras and why, at one time, it was a required feature
to make the camera functional for flash photography.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Nikon vs Canon and the whole dSLR thing
- From: ASAAR
- Re: Nikon vs Canon and the whole dSLR thing
- References:
- Nikon vs Canon and the whole dSLR thing
- From: flambe
- Nikon vs Canon and the whole dSLR thing
- Prev by Date: Advice to Canadians buying out of the U.S.
- Next by Date: Re: Advice to Canadians buying out of the U.S.
- Previous by thread: Nikon vs Canon and the whole dSLR thing
- Next by thread: Re: Nikon vs Canon and the whole dSLR thing
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
