Why Nikon?

2cpu said:

--
I can tell you. Because I have a lot of nikon glass. Otherwise it
is the person not the equipment.

Click to expand...

But of course it is the person doing the photography! The funny thing is that the camera can make a difference in how the person does it.

Let's look at cars - no one really buys the "best" there is (according to all the tests), instead, they buy the car that appeals to them. Someone might buy a Citroen, which means soft and comfy trips for all the passangers but leaves the driver without "the touch". Some would prefer to go with Ford Focus and enjoy the ride while the passangers feel each and every bump on the road...

There are endless amount of features in a camera too, and each photographer has to choose their equipment according to their way of shooting. So go to a store, and if the salesperson starts talking smooth things about the other brand, simply ignore him and take test shots with each camera. Then you'll know which way to go... Forget what Nikon or Canon fans say to you, forget what the sales clerk says, forget all the ads and go by your gut feeling. Otherwise, you'll probably regret it one day.

I went to the store to get a Canon 300D, yet, when I lifted up the D70 I knew instantly what I wanted. Love at first touch And I love the way I can get my RAW files to look like super-detailed slide film with RawShooter Essentials or Adobe Camera Raw.

And please, stop the "the camera doesn't matter" -talk!!

Janne Mankila

I have some test photos I did with that lens that are superb. I am questioning the quality of my 24-120 VR lens. It is an unfair comparison, but I compared it to my prime lenses and they were sharper without sharpening! I have read several of you had problems with banding and noise which resolved after sending it to the factory. I have been playing around with tone mapping and when I did, it showed some banding. These were extreme conditions, and it is barely noticeable. My camera was one of the first (I preordered it). I have not done a real shoot yet. However, I don't want to wait if I have to send it in. Can someone show me what improvements you had with the factory service?
--
opteron 64

That is an affordable option. It's just a hair under 1000 euros here in Finland, but we all know we usually pay way more than others... And I've read some beautiful stories about the lens - my sports and wildlife photography hasn't yet reached the level that would justify me buying one

Yeah, we all know about the questionable quality control in the cheap end of the 3rd party lenses, but the 100-300 isn't in that league anymore. Or so I've heard from photogs much more experienced than me.

Janne Mankila

Kirk makes a tripod replacement for the 80-400mm for $150:

http://www.kirkphoto.com/lenscollars.html

Jason

here is what I always say:

1. if you take the camera away from the photographer you'll have no image...

2. but a camera can capture images without a photographer.
--

Disagree with me all you like, but remember I have a right to an opinion and a right to state it.
http://www.thekmiecs.com
http://www.adamkmiec.com

What? The Nikon 200-400 F4 is listed on B&H for $5,000.00.

I would select Canon - last year I made the digital switch to Nikon but more and more am regretting that choice. Here's why:

1. I'd like VR in a fast (f2.8), short zoom

2. I'd like my second camera to be a full frame sensor so that I can use the wide aspect of my wide lenses- Canon has that option, Nikon doesn't.

3. I hate the the fact that Nikon is playing games with encryption - they truly don't get it.
4. I hate the fact that I still can't get batteries for my d200.

5. d200 Image counter is innacurate - again...why can't they learn from the D70 mistakes?!

6. Many Nikon lenses, up until very recently, are out of stock especially the fast ones that would go with a pro camera.
7. In general, Canon has substantially lower noise at ISO 1600 and 3200.
8. Canon has more lense choices overall

just my two cents...

John

http://www.momentskept.com/

Bmark said:

If only Nikon would upgrate the 80-400.

Click to expand...

Don't bet on it. I highly suspect this to be happening very soon. Why would Nikon change anything on a highly selling lens. Even a little change requires thorough lens redesign. It is not a cookie cutter thing that they can arbitrarily add features. A lot of people who really need an upgrade would be able to go to 200-400VR. So, don't bank on it happening very soon.

--
Speed is significant and interesting but accuracy is downright fascinating
http://www.pbase.com/pradipta

Adam Kmiec said:

2. but a camera can capture images without a photographer.
--
Disagree with me all you like, but remember I have a right to an
opinion and a right to state it.

Click to expand...

I have to disagree here! Hehh! I think you need 'em both to make a photograph.

Janne Mankila

Bmark said:

What? The Nikon 200-400 F4 is listed on B&H for $5,000.00.

Click to expand...

It's 6'600 euros here!! Add to that the currency rates, which make it even more unfair!

Whoops.. I got the price of the Sigma wrong.. It's 1'050 euros, from the same shop that sells the Nikkor at 6'600.

When it comes to "normal" zooms I count on used Nikkors - I got 20-35 f/2.8 for under 400 euros and 135 f/2.0 MF for 250 euros and so on... But when I'll have a chance to get more into the nature, wildlife and sports photography, I know I'll get the Sigma 100-300. It looks good, too!

Janne Mankila

Bmark said:

I would appreciate any substantive reasons why people choose Nikon
over Canon.

Click to expand...

In early 2004, when I was considering moving to digital SLR, I seriously evaluated whether I wanted to stay with Nikon or switch to Canon. The reason I stayed with Nikon was very simple - I liked their product development strategy more than I liked Canon's. That is not to say that I agree 100% with Nikon but it was clearly more than that of Canon. What I totally did not like about Canon was incremental update they were making every 18 months and releasing a new camera without true upgrades. On the other hand, almost every new product from Nikon was clearly a step above the previous model.

E.g., compare Canon 20D and 30D and then compare Nikon's D100 and D200. You will see what I am saying.

Again, I am not saying Nikon is perfect. But to me, it provided better value for money in the long run.

--
Speed is significant and interesting but accuracy is downright fascinating
http://www.pbase.com/pradipta

with digital you can do time interval shooting. so literally you can capture images with out a photographer
--

Disagree with me all you like, but remember I have a right to an opinion and a right to state it.
http://www.thekmiecs.com
http://www.adamkmiec.com

I'm Nikon because I have always been Nikon and I see no need to change, but I honestly believe the best camera for me at the moment is the D200 anyway. I'm also happy with my 2 main lenses which pre-date my D200 purchase, namely 17~35 and 85 f1.4.

If I needed full frame I'd get the Canon 5D (but I don't). If I wanted a particular lens I'd get that, but I've got what I need.

I've got no reason to talk you into one system or another, but if you are contemplating the D200 I can confirm that it is a wonderful camera. If you need a particular Canon lens I'd recommend the 5D. Either way you won't go far wrong. Good luck deciding.

ScubaGuyJohn said:

2. I'd like my second camera to be a full frame sensor so that I
can use the wide aspect of my wide lenses- Canon has that option,
Nikon doesn't.

Click to expand...

Wide angle on the 5D is problematic, as most lenses (20 mm or wider) are quite soft at the corners. Even the expensive Canon EF 16-35 mm is horrifically soft, especially at f2.8. The 17-40L seems to be the best at the wider ends, but only when stopped down to f8-11. At it's longer ends, it begins loosing its sharpness. If you're o.k. with just 24 mm, then the Canon 24-70 or 24-105 are good. But the latter lens is limited to a max aperature of only f4.

Honestly, right now for wide angle, APS sized sensors seem better, with the best lenses being the Tokina 12-24, Sigma 10-20, and specifically for Canon, the 10-22.

-proudfather

Bmark said:

What about the 70-200 with the 2X teleconverter. 1.7 with the
70-200 does not yield the same magnification as the 80-400.

Click to expand...

with the crop factor you'd get 510mm compared to your 400mm on a Canon 5D.
200x1.7x1.5

i've seen examples illustrating both fantastic performance and ok performance. there is a great test showing light fall off on the 5d vs. the other canon DSLRs and the fall off is no worse.
--

Disagree with me all you like, but remember I have a right to an opinion and a right to state it.
http://www.thekmiecs.com
http://www.adamkmiec.com

Bmark said:

The 100-400 has the USM and internal zoom. of course that means it
is longer and a little heavier. I have read that the Nikon 80-400
has a cheap plastic tripod mount. Optically, they seem about equal.

Click to expand...

If that particular lens is the make or break item for your purchase, then Canon at this point in time is probably a better option if you need AFS/USM focus speed. The collar on the Nikon lens is not great, but replacement collars are available from RRS and Kirk that are excellent. At the other end of the spectrum Nikon makes in my opinion much better WA glass. The 17-35 is far superior to the Canon 16-35. You have to decide which system works best for you. They both make fine products.
--
Respond to rudeness with civility, it really annoys them.

Regards,

JR

Adam Kmiec said:

1. Canon's product cycle is faster allowing them to react to the
competition and market wants/needs faster.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure if that's good or bad. 6 months after you buy a camera it's almost guaranteed not to be the current model.

Adam Kmiec said:

2. They have FF and nikon doesn't.

Click to expand...

Ditto FF. Pros and cons. I prefer the DX making my long lenses appear longer. I bought a 10~20 to cover the wide end. I know the ins and outs of FF. If you need it you need Canon.

Pradipta Dutta said:

Bmark said:

I would appreciate any substantive reasons why people choose Nikon
over Canon.

Click to expand...

In early 2004, when I was considering moving to digital SLR, I
seriously evaluated whether I wanted to stay with Nikon or switch
to Canon. The reason I stayed with Nikon was very simple - I liked
their product development strategy more than I liked Canon's. That
is not to say that I agree 100% with Nikon but it was clearly more
than that of Canon. What I totally did not like about Canon was
incremental update they were making every 18 months and releasing a
new camera without true upgrades. On the other hand, almost every
new product from Nikon was clearly a step above the previous model.

Click to expand...

I find this interesting as
D30, 1D, 1Ds, 10D and 5D when launched novelties in their own class
300D a clear downgrade from 10D, but significant as started the sub-$1000 era
300D -> 350D quite significant upgrade
10D -> 20D quite significant upgrade
20D -> 30D perhaps a minor update
1D -> 1D2 quite significant upgrade
1D2 -> 1D2N a minor update
1Ds -> 1Ds2 quite significant upgrade

D70 -> D70s perhaps a minor update
D70 -> D50 mix of update and downgrade
D100 -> D200 quite significant upgrade
D1H -> D2H quite significant upgrade
D1H -> D2Hs perhaps a minro update
D1X -> D2X quite significant upgrade

Pradipta Dutta said:

E.g., compare Canon 20D and 30D and then compare Nikon's D100 and
D200. You will see what I am saying.

Click to expand...

Yes to the above listed pairs, but as as we all know very well Canon made the significant upgrade already in 2004 with 20D - and now after an update model we can start the count-down to get another.

Pradipta Dutta said:

Again, I am not saying Nikon is perfect. But to me, it provided
better value for money in the long run.

--
Speed is significant and interesting but accuracy is downright
fascinating
http://www.pbase.com/pradipta

Click to expand...

Adam Kmiec said:

with digital you can do time interval shooting. so literally you
can capture images with out a photographer
--
Disagree with me all you like, but remember I have a right to an
opinion and a right to state it.
http://www.thekmiecs.com
http://www.adamkmiec.com

Click to expand...

Your being disingenuous about this one. You could do interval shooting with film too. And you still need a photographer to set it up to begin with. Before you tell me that you coudn't take many shots with film. My brother has a 750 shot back for his F3 or F2, I can never remember which.
--
Respond to rudeness with civility, it really annoys them.

Regards,

JR