Aesop's fable and the D800

Started Mar 3, 2012 | Discussions thread
dmanthree Veteran Member • Posts: 7,385
Re: Asap's rationalizations

marike6 wrote:

When a nice camera like the D800 comes along, I think people forget that you're buying into a system, not just the body. The best example of this is the NEX series. Killer sensors, great bodies, crap lens selection (unless you want to deal with clunky adapters).

Nikon as a system is as good as any in photography. Certainly, I'm not sure I've ever heard the term "crap" used to describe the Nikon's complete lens line-up and accessories which include CLS, arguably the most advanced flash system in photography.

I was referring to the lens selection for the NEX line, not Nikon.

And many spray and pray photographers who absolutely must have AF forget that Nikon never changed their lens mount like Canon did, so all F-mount Nikkors work on even the most modern Nikon body. There are some legendary AIS Nikkors with proper dampend MF rings, engraved distance scales, and extraordinary performance that can be found in Ebay for extremely low prices. Indeed good, cheap manual Nikkors with manual aperture rings are one reason so many Canon videographers have large collections of AIS Nikkors. Canon FD lenses can be used on EOS cameras ONLY with an adapter that includes optics that allow the lens to focus at infinity.

As far as AF lenses, I'm not sure why I keep reading that the 24-105 L has no equivalent when Nikon makes the AF-S 24-120 VR. And for wide angles, the 14-24 2.8 may be the very best wide zoom ever made which is why it's not uncommon to see Canon shooters using it with an adapter. Price is the main reason the 17-40 L is talked about as it's performance on FF is nothing spectacular.

My opinion of Nikon's 24-120 is based on personal experience and testing. I've found it to be an OK lens, not the equal of Canon's 24-105. YMMV.

So as far as complete systems, other than the MP65 Macro or the 400 5.6, there is really nothing that Canon has that Nikon does not.

Canon's Ts lenses are more flexible in use than Nikon's, which don't allow tilting and shifting at the same time (I think...). And Nikon has no equivalent for my favorite zoom, the 70-200 f4 IS. I'm sure there are other discrepancies both ways, but my point is that the body is only a part of the entire system, and comparing bodies as if they are stand-alone products is pretty worthless. I wasn't out to knock Nikon, and even Canon knows that their 17-40 needs replacing. They've recently pantented a 17-40 f2.8/4 zoom. Who knows when it will see the light of day, but it's a start, I hope.

-- hide signature --

No Signature.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow