Switch from Canon to Nikon - advice on lenses

Started Jul 6, 2013 | Discussions thread
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,579
Re: Photographic companies
In reply to BackInTheGame, Jul 16, 2013

BackInTheGame wrote:

I think I was mistaken. You are not a Canon troll. You are just trolling.

Your rudeness speaks louder about you than me. It is somewhat unique in DPR forums that when someone asks a claim to be supported with analysis he is labelled as a troll.

So let us just start out with one example. At what point did Nikon provide a top notch AF system to mid-range users? I would say the N90s and F100 film cameras. Would you argue that? At what point did Canon provide even a decent AF system to mid-range users? I would say the 7D, and even that is debatable. Would you disagree with that? If you know of a earlier Canon body in this class that provided such an AF system, please enlighten me. Also, tell me if there was a difference over all these year in the price of those bodies that would justify AF systems like that in the 5DII and even the 6D.

Go back further. How was the Canon A1 or the AE1 shutter constructed? Was it a cheap camera? No. What was the top shutter speed? Compare it to the FM2/FE2, in every possible respect. Which company did more to provide the best possible tool?

You point above is basically Nikon always offer better value for money.

This claim is pretty much false. Nikon and Canon has always been leap frogging each other, each had been leading at different generations. Canon had been the leader with 1Ds series until D3X, leader with 1D series until D3, and leader with 5D1. Before D300 Canon always was leading in mid-range with XXD.

Your examples are selective and thus your analysis is deceptive.

Which company made every effort to maintain the integrity of its users current equipment while working toward advancing the product. Why do you think Nikon seemed to lag with AF and with Digital, and even with full frame. Could it be that by maintaining the F-mount, no user was ever left behind?

Consider that the Nikon F-mount has been very difficult to maintain with changing technology, and yet Nikon has done just that, and Nikon still produces some of the very best lenses available. And when Nikon works through the problems involved at each evolutionary step, they have always provided a superior product, as they did with the D3/D700. And think about this. When they developed the D3 AF system, they shared that system with the D700 and even the crop sensor D300. Please provide me with any evidence that Canon has done the same sort of things to provide users the best possible product at all levels. Maybe you should let me tell you.

When Canon saw the gold in Minolta's AF system they made a quick decision. It would have been more costly to produce AF lenses based on the Canon FD mount (exactly as it was for the Nikon F-mount). But the profits were there for a large company that could flood the market quickly. So out with the FD mount and in with a whole different animal. Never mind the thousands of users stuck with useless FD lenses if they wanted the new cameras. And then again, when Canon went full frame, same story. To heck with current users. There was gold out there.

Toy point aboe is basically Nikon maintained the F mount out of the goodness of their heart and Canon was just pure Evil. Such claim is laughable for even high school students with very basic economics knowledge.

Canon took a big risk when they replaced FD with EF, there was no guarantee every FD user would accept this change, indeed many Canon user were angry and moved away from Canon, even till this day they would like to remind everyone what they did back then. The move from FD to EF ultimately proved successful, why? because Canon was able to deliver a good product at a good price, not because subsequent customers were just stupid.

Nikon simply did not take the same chance and your assertion that they do everything for the customer is clearly false because since early days of DSLR, low end models could not AF with lenses without built in motor, it is a lot more crippling than being unable to use EFS lens on FF Canon. This disability continues today. D600 was very close to inherit this disability too.

In any case it is completely silly to say one company is better than the other because it would not change a particular standard that hindered progress. It is a matter business strategy and the only measure of success is market acceptance.

To this day you cannot mount crop sensor lenses on Canon full frame cameras.

Which is because EF-S lenses takes advantage of the smaller mirror and uses a Shorter flange back distance. Who in his right mind upgrades to FF and stick to APS-C lens anyway?

Now jump to the 5D/5DII. At the time, a good sensor, but its primary asset was full frame and later pixels. No one else could match it. So it was okay to stick a sorry AF system into a plastic body. It was good for profits, and there were plenty of takers. You would think that once Nikon stepped into digital with well designed, sturdy cameras at the mi-range, Canon would say, "Well, if they are giving their users great build and great AF, we will do the same." Fat chance. And you would think that the new Nikon full frame sensors, the D3/D700, would have spurred Canon into development mode. But it appears all they have been working on is advancing still frame cameras for use with video.

You above point speaks like a true nikon fanboy. Camera companies (and any other companies) can spec their product however they like and charge however they like, the only true test is how well the market accepts it.

5D2 managed to outsell D700 7 to 1 and maintained its price for over three years in its life cycle. D700 on the other hand drop quickly from its original 2999.

basically there nothing inherently kind about Nikon's design decisions on D700, they made their bet on Af and FPS instead of MP and 1080P video and they lost.

So to finish up here, if I were buying a full frame Canon, it would be that plastic 5DII with a weak AF system. The sensor technology is the same as the current bodies, and you only need to visit DxO to see that.

6D is decidedly superior than 5D2, you should indeed check DXO.

Canon has done some great work with the software side of the equation, but the sensors have not advanced. Nikon, with Sony and some smaller companies, has moved so far ahead of Canon that I am amazed people will still buy that stuff. However, I do realize they have a huge base of fine lenses, and that will hold some users. Canon threw its mid-range users a bone with the AF system in the 5DIII, a system they should have had all along, but Canon wasn't shy about sticking an extra 700 or 800 dollars on the price tag for that AF system and a non-plastic body. Oh, by the way, NO Nikon top tier DX or any full frame DSLR has been built with a plastic body. Does Nikon cost more? I think you can answer that one.

Your above point basically iterate the same thing everyone including myself have been saying in this thread - D600 presents a very good value over 6D and 5D3. however that is NOT the point you were making and have been asked to defend so please do no deviate. the point you made was that " Nikon is far superior to Canon in so many ways that have nothing to do with lens and camera comparisons."

Let me throw out a little caution for anyone holding canon cameras. They saw gold in the Nikon 1 AF system for video, and they have the bit in their teeth on that one. What comes next? Who gets stuck with dead-end technology?

Yet why is almost no one buys or recommands Nikon 1 for video? whenever someone asks about video in these forums the answer has always been GH series or 5D series?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow