>From Tom DelRosario,
> http://www.moose395.net/tips/2000.html
>
> Moose Peterson is a famous Nikon photographer. I stumbled onto his site and
> was reading his tips. In one of the tips on the above page, Moose really pans
> IS, stating that it is not necessary if you use correct technique (I believe
> it was writtern before Moose got his own Nikon VR lens.) Thus, IS really
> isn't handy. (I agree with regards to the 600 IS, who the heck is going to
> hand-hold that, the 28-135 or 70-200 may be different cases, though)
>
> But the interesting part of the tip is that Moose basically states that people
> who go to Canon because of IS are losing out because the metering on the Nikon
> F5 is so much superior. I am curious if anyone here has done a comparison
> between Nikon and Canon metering.
>
> Tom D
Tom,
The UK Professional magazine "British Journal of Photography" ran a
comparison between EOS3, F5 and Minolta Dynax 9, October 1999.To give you a
flavour, here are a few quotations from it.
"The good news is that experienced photographers are not yet redundant as no
camera gave exposures that the writer was 100% satisfied with in every
situation."
"At no time did the F5 overexpose an image, and even under average lighting
it produced results that stood out."
"The F5's Achilles Heel was a tendency to underexpose (by) around
0.3-0.5 EV...under flat lighting (as is so often encountered in the UK) the
images look flat with poor shadow detail."
"On bright days, the F5 had extra punch, putting it ahead of the other
two..."
"The EOS3 was the most up-and-down of the three. It would often mimic the
F5's readings and produce a really good transparency, but with very dark
subjects under flat or bright lighting it could go off the rails...producing
anything but professional results."
"Minolta's Dynax 9...generally sat comfortably between the Nikon and the
Canon. It mostly gave just a little more exposure than the F5 and was better
behaved than the EOS3 with dark subjects in very bright light. These tests
did, however, produce a few frames that looked a fraction washed-out."
"The Dynax 9 opened-up the shadows nicely, and was more consistent
than the F5 and EOS3 considering both low and high contrast situations."
"Users who shoot negative film will get good results out of any of the three
cameras reviewed here, though the EOS3 would be most likely to give a bit
more colour saturation due to increased exposure."
"Experienced transparency users would probably be best advised to
choose the F5-but watch out for flat lighting...that will make some frames
look worse than those from the other two cameras.."
These results were echoed in a three-way test between F5, Dynax 9 and EOS1v
in the UK magazine "Amateur Photographer" in late 2000.
As for Moose Peterson himself. In his Nikon System Handbook (6th edition) he
notes that the F5 was the only camera he had ever used (up to that time)
with which he had never had to apply any exposure compensation.
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
