File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Hey nikonfags, I keep hearing over and over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and that Nikon's optics are better than Contax/Yashica/Canon/Leica/Zeiss.

Show me some hard data and that its not just faggotry.
>> Anonymous
Canon makes better camera bodies, and when people are new to photography, they tend to think the body ("the camera") is as/more important than the lens. In many cases, I'd say people don't even consider the lens.
So, they buy a Canon, because Canons have traditionally been (and to some extent, still are) slicker looking and comfier feeling, as well as having really great menu systems on the digital bodies.

And then they transcend, realize the image is more important than the gear and that the lens is the only thing that affects the final image, and buy a Nikon.

Or they shoot sports.
>> Anonymous
>Contax

Generally no.

>Yashica


Don't know.

>Canon

Sometimes.

>Leica

Almost never.

>Zeiss

Almost never.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
A CHALLENGER APPEARS

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 350D DIGITALCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsPhotographerunknownImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2008:04:23 00:06:44Exposure Time1/5 secF-Numberf/16.0Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating200Lens Aperturef/16.0Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePartialFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length50.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width600Image Height592RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
>>198135
GODFUCKINGDAMMIT no more stupid brand copypasta.
>> Anonymous
>>198137
The fact that you do not know Yashica already means you're just talking bullshit. OP asked for data.

>>198141
I hope you realize Zeiss isn't as good as they used to be?
>> Anonymous
>>198135
Drive nails?
>> Anonymous
>>198137
You noticed just what I was going at and then just walked past it. :[

Show me some real data about your fabled pieces of magical unicorn glass, Nikonbitches.
>> Anonymous
>>198151
What, because I don't know much about Yashica lenses means I don't know anything about Contax lenses, Nikkor lenses, Canon lenses, Leica lenses, and Zeiss lenses?
>> Anonymous
>>198151
>>198188

Op here.
Hey guys, I don't know how good Yashica glass was, either, personally. All I know for a fact is that they made lenses in the C/Y mount, which they shared with Contax and that out of the two, Contax' lenses were generally better and/or more expensive. It's alright not to know enough about how good their glass actually is/was.

Im still wondering about the evidence supporting the notion that Nikon glass is superior.
>> Anonymous
>>198188
Not knowing Yashica glass makes your credibility pretty low. Not having any sources makes your credibility zero.
>> Anonymous
>>198129
i thought they were all pretty much the same shit.
i chose nikon because it was 2/3 the price of canon, and has 6400 iso. the lenses are so similar nikon/canon that it was never a factor.

plus, arguing this much over what lens is better, the best lens in the world is still gonna take a shitty picture if youre a shitty photographer.
>> Anonymous
>>198339
Even though I know what you're saying is true, and that you're more likely to ruin a good shot due to lack of skill than because of minor optical aberrations in your equipment, most people seem to think otherwise. I know it really is irrelevant, but Nikonfags believe their glass is much better so vehemently they seem to blindly throw it at everyone at the first argument that their system is somehow superior because their lenses are the best.

I want to see some hard facts on this shit, because it looks like a big sack of pure shit that's been lugged around too long. I'd like for myself and others to see the truth in such arguments. Even though what you said is a stronger truth in that it certainly has a greater effect than any degree of optical perfection.
>> Anonymous
Yashica ML's are fucking beautiful (and work great on my canon, even over my canon lenses), but when it gets down to it, kiron (even the kiron series 1 vivitar's (branded as vivi but made by kiron)) made better lenses which could be used with an adaptol.

Nikon has nothing on Yashica ML as far as I'm concerned, and this is from a camera fag who collects lenses and cameras. No hard data though, sorry, it's nigh impossible to even get information on some of the lenses I have, never mind hard data comparisons.
>> Anonymous
>>198418
Oh, and I should mention even though it might cause rage, my Olympus mount (just like my Kiron/Vivitars are) my Tokina 17mm, is by far my fav lense of all time at this point. it's so clear. The Vivitar Series 1 70-210 falls in second, with my Yashica ML 28mm in third (even though it is the most used at this point).

All of these lenses are insanely crisp and sharp, I haven't had any problems in any application of using them on either film or digital.

Though, I should note, I would use my DX nikkors (on a d70) over my canon shits (on a 40d).
>> Anonymous
it depends on the lens

some nikon lens might be better than another lens... (note the might)

and almost visually ALL lenses behave the same at f5.6
the point if a lens is better or not is on its lower aperture..or at least at generally low apertures
thats one point


another point is that usually u cannot tell a shot if its shot by a leica or a nikon or a cannon
(well maybe if you shoot walls and test charts only)


thats like looking at the finger rather than the moon...and missing its beauty..

so whats the point of arguing?

my glass is better than yours?
how about my photos is better than yours...(not just sharper)
>> Anonymous
>>198447
>thats like looking at the finger rather than the moon...and missing its beauty..
Yeah, pretty much.

>so whats the point of arguing?
I don't know, brand zealotfaggotry? There is no point in arguing, but seeing how they never stop, I'm asking for facts that support their argument. You made a good point there, saying that
>usually u cannot tell a shot if its shot by a leica or a nikon or a canon (well maybe if you shoot walls and test charts only)
but some people seem to believe that such a test is equivalent of real life. The truth is that most objects won't stay still and you won't stay still handholding a camera, so whatever little thing is gained between two lenses that are very similar is immediately lost the moment a person is thrown into the mix.

>my glass is better than yours?
I dont know, but Nikonfags spend half the time saying that, the other half fapping to their gear.

>how about my photos is better than yours...(not just sharper)
If only nikonfags cared about that...

Also inb4poorfag, not everyone chooses a brand over money. More expensive for the same shit is stupid, and there are many other reasons to choose B over A.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
A photo doesn't have to be sharp to be good.
>> Anonymous
>>198459
A good card, sir. "Sharpness is a burgeois value", he said, or something to that effect.

Strictly speaking of optics, which is what this thread is about, however, sharpness is indeed an important value, as many other aberrations are synergic with it. It's pretty much the first thing optic engineers attempt to achieve. Well, that and correcting chromatic aberration.