December 05, 2016, 10:14:35 PM

Author Topic: Why I'm not jumping to Nikon  (Read 30067 times)

ecka

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 849
  • Size matters ;)
    • flickr
Re: Why I'm not jumping to Nikon
« Reply #30 on: September 21, 2012, 01:26:05 PM »
Do you really need something like 70-200/4 to pair with 24-120/4 VR? That's only 80mm extra. Just don't be fooled by cheaper and/or better Nikon bodies. Their lenses are more expensive.

Their lenses are NOT more expensive.

Just go check the prices...

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM - $200 cheaper than - Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II
Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L USM - $300 cheaper than - Nikon AF-S Nikkor 35mm f/1.4G
Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8 II USM - $200 cheaper than - Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED
Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM - $350 cheaper than - Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-120mm f/4G ED VR
Canon EF 24mm f/1.4L II USM - $350 cheaper than - Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24mm f/1.4G ED

Quote
People say that in reality (not lab tests, but in less than ideal conditions) D7000 AF is a real pain and it looks like D600 got the same AF system. So, think twice before you jump.

People do NOT say the D7000 has AF troubles. You thought that one up yourself buddy.
No comments. Google it.
FF + primes !

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Why I'm not jumping to Nikon
« Reply #30 on: September 21, 2012, 01:26:05 PM »

DB

  • Guest
Re: Why I'm not jumping to Nikon
« Reply #31 on: September 21, 2012, 02:48:48 PM »
I read a review of the new Sony A99 today in a magazine and it looked at first like a possible threat to Canon or Nikon, but then you see there is no AFMA and a restricted lens lineup...and all the new features then seem pointless.

Lawliet

  • Canon 7D MK II
  • *****
  • Posts: 549
Re: Why I'm not jumping to Nikon
« Reply #32 on: September 21, 2012, 03:47:54 PM »
upgrading to a Nikon FF instead of a Canon FF might give you better value.

Even sidegrading can lead to black numbers - A D800+24-70/70-200 is much cheaper then buying enough Ws to get a similar picture with a 5D3. The 1Dx approximatly (re)equalizes that, what remains is the free choice depending on the assignment.

daniemare

  • Canon AE-1
  • ***
  • Posts: 65
Re: Why I'm not jumping to Nikon
« Reply #33 on: September 21, 2012, 04:24:49 PM »
Do you really need something like 70-200/4 to pair with 24-120/4 VR? That's only 80mm extra. Just don't be fooled by cheaper and/or better Nikon bodies. Their lenses are more expensive.

Their lenses are NOT more expensive.

Just go check the prices...

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM - $200 cheaper than - Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II
Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L USM - $300 cheaper than - Nikon AF-S Nikkor 35mm f/1.4G
Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8 II USM - $200 cheaper than - Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED
Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM - $350 cheaper than - Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-120mm f/4G ED VR
Canon EF 24mm f/1.4L II USM - $350 cheaper than - Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24mm f/1.4G ED

And that is mostly a listing of lenses what I think go with a 5DIII or 1DX based on price (if you can afford those you can afford the bodies).  For a new entrant into the FF realm - to whom I think the 6D is aimed at - I think the following will be more representative (based on BH prices excl rebates and US model). I am leaving out 3rd party alternatives as it is available in both mounts.

Canon                                   Nikon                                 
17-40L   - $740                      None                                 
24-105L - $970 ($800 kit)       24-120 - $1,300   
70-200LF4 nonIS - $670          none                           
70-200LF4 IS - $1,350             none                   
100-400 - $1,700                   80-400 - $1,680
28mm 1.8 - $510                    28 1.8G - $700
50mm 1.4 - $400                    50mm 1.4G - $440
300mm F4 IS - $1,350           300mm F4 IS - $1,370 (No VR)
430EXII - $300                      SB-700 - $330

One can debate the ability of each item individually, but that doesn't take away from the fact that Canon as a whole is cheaper and Nikon's lenses ARE MORE EXPENSIVE
Canon 6D, Canon 24-105 F4L IS, Canon 70-200 F4L, Canon 100 F2.8L IS macro, Canon 50 F1.4, Canon 28 F1.8

K-amps

  • 1D X Mark II
  • *******
  • Posts: 1783
Re: Why I'm not jumping to Nikon
« Reply #34 on: September 21, 2012, 04:44:40 PM »
You're currently shooting with a T1i and you're torn between the IQ of a FF Canon vs Nikon body? Poor DR? You sound like an engineer, not a photographer.

If you think Canon has better glass, then that's a much better basis for you to make your decision. But seriously buddy, stop reading the body specs and just go out and shoot photos. There's no IQ or DR category in photo competitions.
yeah a lot of people forget that, the main thing in how to do great photography is you! not the camera!

Although the camera is not the most important aspect in photography, you still want the best camera for your budget. Depending how much you're invested in canon lenses and how much you can sell it for, upgrading to a Nikon FF instead of a Canon FF might give you better value.

+1

I love when people posting in a gear-oriented forum and having themselves several thousands grands of gear pieces come out saying "Nah, it's not about the gear, it's about skill". It's hypocrite to no end. Especially because I often read that this is a Canon enthusiasts forum, so apparently I have to assume that skill comes in kit with Canon gear only.

I would kindly invite those people to act on their principles, sell all their expensive gear and buy a 1100D kit and a fifty nifty. Then you can come and show us "pixel-peepers" and "spec-readers" (who care about value for money of the products we buy) that our worries have nothing to do with IQ and how miserable photographers we are.

+1000  :)

« Last Edit: September 21, 2012, 04:57:48 PM by K-amps »
EOS-80D & Pentax K1
EF Mount Rok 14mm F2.8; ∑ 24-105mm F4 A; 70-200 F/2.8L Mk.II; 100-400mm L Mk.II; EF 85mm L F/1.2 Mk. II; 100mm L F/2.8
Pentax D-FA 15-30 F2.8 & 28-105mm

roland

  • Guest
Re: Why I'm not jumping to Nikon
« Reply #35 on: September 21, 2012, 05:10:00 PM »
And that is mostly a listing of lenses what I think go with a 5DIII or 1DX based on price (if you can afford those you can afford the bodies).  For a new entrant into the FF realm - to whom I think the 6D is aimed at - I think the following will be more representative (based on BH prices excl rebates and US model). I am leaving out 3rd party alternatives as it is available in both mounts.

Canon                                   Nikon                                 
17-40L   - $740                      None                                 
24-105L - $970 ($800 kit)       24-120 - $1,300   
70-200LF4 nonIS - $670          none                           
70-200LF4 IS - $1,350             none                   
100-400 - $1,700                   80-400 - $1,680
28mm 1.8 - $510                    28 1.8G - $700
50mm 1.4 - $400                    50mm 1.4G - $440
300mm F4 IS - $1,350           300mm F4 IS - $1,370 (No VR)
430EXII - $300                      SB-700 - $330

One can debate the ability of each item individually, but that doesn't take away from the fact that Canon as a whole is cheaper and Nikon's lenses ARE MORE EXPENSIVE

And even more significant are the rows where you put "none."

Also (although I've never shot it personally) from what I read, even disregarding price, the Nikon 24-120 doesn't stack up to the Canon 24-105.  And that's a pretty useful walkaround lens for a FF body.

Razor2012

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 618
Re: Why I'm not jumping to Nikon
« Reply #36 on: September 21, 2012, 05:22:47 PM »
Why not just let people live with their choices?  Canon and Nikon are both great systems and by going with either one you've made a great choice.  These systems take fantastic photographs and whether or not you have the highest resolution or the highest ISO, it really doesn't matter.  It's the person behind these tools that matters. 
5D MKIII w grip, 70-200 2.8L IS II, 24-70 2.8L II, 16-35 2.8L II, 100 2.8L IS macro, 600EX-RT

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Why I'm not jumping to Nikon
« Reply #36 on: September 21, 2012, 05:22:47 PM »

jthomson

  • EOS M3
  • ****
  • Posts: 249
Re: Why I'm not jumping to Nikon
« Reply #37 on: September 21, 2012, 05:33:34 PM »
One lens, the  400mm f5.6L  nikon just doesn't have anything comparable in the same price range.

The sensor is only one part of the IQ.
I'm also on a T1i .  Waiting to see what the 7D  mark 2 looks like.   

One lens that might tempt me to go to the dark side is the Nikon 200-400mm.   If the price  rumors about the Canon 200-400mm 1.4x are correct then the  Nikon would start to look very attractive.

   

ecka

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 849
  • Size matters ;)
    • flickr
Re: Why I'm not jumping to Nikon
« Reply #38 on: September 21, 2012, 06:12:20 PM »
All of these lens comparisons forgot one thing...

Nikon 14-24/2.8 $1749
Canon nothing.

The thing is that we can use any Nikon lens on Canon body ;)
FF + primes !

jondave

  • Rebel SL1
  • ***
  • Posts: 91
Re: Why I'm not jumping to Nikon
« Reply #39 on: September 21, 2012, 06:28:59 PM »
I love when people posting in a gear-oriented forum and having themselves several thousands grands of gear pieces come out saying "Nah, it's not about the gear, it's about skill". It's hypocrite to no end. Especially because I often read that this is a Canon enthusiasts forum, so apparently I have to assume that skill comes in kit with Canon gear only.

I would kindly invite those people to act on their principles, sell all their expensive gear and buy a 1100D kit and a fifty nifty. Then you can come and show us "pixel-peepers" and "spec-readers" (who care about value for money of the products we buy) that our worries have nothing to do with IQ and how miserable photographers we are.

Whoa, being extreme at its finest. Hold your horses, we're not comparing a 1DX / D4 vs a 1100D here.

The OP was mulling between a D600 and a 6D. Now tell me, how will choosing one camera over the other make you a much better photographer?

rh81photo

  • Power Shot G7X
  • **
  • Posts: 14
Re: Why I'm not jumping to Nikon
« Reply #40 on: September 21, 2012, 06:33:34 PM »
You're currently shooting with a T1i and you're torn between the IQ of a FF Canon vs Nikon body? Poor DR? You sound like an engineer, not a photographer.

If you think Canon has better glass, then that's a much better basis for you to make your decision. But seriously buddy, stop reading the body specs and just go out and shoot photos. There's no IQ or DR category in photo competitions.
yeah a lot of people forget that, the main thing in how to do great photography is you! not the camera!

Although the camera is not the most important aspect in photography, you still want the best camera for your budget. Depending how much you're invested in canon lenses and how much you can sell it for, upgrading to a Nikon FF instead of a Canon FF might give you better value.

+1

I love when people posting in a gear-oriented forum and having themselves several thousands grands of gear pieces come out saying "Nah, it's not about the gear, it's about skill". It's hypocrite to no end. Especially because I often read that this is a Canon enthusiasts forum, so apparently I have to assume that skill comes in kit with Canon gear only.

I would kindly invite those people to act on their principles, sell all their expensive gear and buy a 1100D kit and a fifty nifty. Then you can come and show us "pixel-peepers" and "spec-readers" (who care about value for money of the products we buy) that our worries have nothing to do with IQ and how miserable photographers we are.

+1

this also cracks me up. but there's even more to it. certain types of photography are simply horribly ineffective with the wrong gear. try to learn how to shoot sports without the right equipment...takes really long and the learning curve is quite flat for a looong time.

yes yes, people learnt it before, even in analogue times and without the glass we have today, but it took them a professional career to do so.
today even I (non professional hobbyist) can shoot sports with a lens(70-200L f2.8 USM) that is fast enough to focus and a camera(40D) that has a good enough AF to lock focus and a decent framerate(~6.3fps). so YES it IS the gear that enables me to learn and succeed at photographing certain themes at a decent quality.

and SINCE I am a hobbyist I cannot justify any price for a camera, so naturally I look for value/price ratio. and at the moment the offerings from canon have a not-so-nice v/p-ratio. I have to express this, and reading the forums makes me feel that i'm not totally off with my view of the situation.

I am really torn apart here, because I see the arguments staying in the canon system. but the offerings for the bodies available from canon are either too pricey(5DmkIII) or do not offer enough features to even call it an upgrade (6D). I have about 2000EUR to spend for a camera, but see no point in spending it for something that doesn't fit my needs. BUT the D600 is only an entry into a world-of-lenses-to-be-bought, so a body alone purchase is also a no go.
I probably will go for a 7D now and have some spare cash. thats nice for me. but a week ago even a 7D was unattractive because ML wasn't possible, now that looks different :D exciting times!

just my 2cents
cheer up everyone, we have a nice job/hobby  ;)

cliffwang

  • Canon 7D MK II
  • *****
  • Posts: 501
Re: Why I'm not jumping to Nikon
« Reply #41 on: September 21, 2012, 06:33:49 PM »
With Nikon you would have to go 3rd party for most to get the price fit\

And if you read the latest blog entry on lensrentals about lens repairs, Tamron are seriously whipping Canon/Nikon ass.

I guess that's why Tamron gives 6 year warranty, but Canon gives only one year warranty.  Since I bought Tamron 24-70mm VC, I have changed my image of Tamron.  I will like to try more Tamron lenses in the future.
Canon 5D3 | Samyang 14mm F/2.8 | Sigma 50mm F/1.4 | Tamron 24-70mm F/2.8 VC | Canon 70-200mm F/2.8 IS MK2 | Canon 100mm f/2.8 Macro L | Canon Closed-up 500D | 430EX | Kenko 2x Teleplus Pro 300 | Manfrotto Tripod

birdman

  • Rebel T6i
  • ****
  • Posts: 122
Re: Why I'm not jumping to Nikon
« Reply #42 on: September 22, 2012, 01:51:18 AM »
I'm a former 5d2 owner, and these comments/arguments crack me the hell up. I love this site, but there are TOO MANY FOLKS on here compared to NikonRumors. You know why? Canon loyalists are too frustrated fighting amongst themselves.

For the record, I own the D800 and have none of the left AF/greenish-LCD problems that are overblown. It's FAR from perfect, as well, and frankly I really miss the sheer simplicity of the 5d2. That said, Nikon's UWA lenses are far better and that was my reason for switching. I tried out the D600 at Best Buy today for a long, long time. It's a extremely good DSLR. I wish I'd waited on it and saved myself about $850. Is it 90% of 5d3? I don't even know what in the holy hell that means. It is PHENOMENAL for $2,099!!!! That, my friends, is a fact.

Now let's move on to lenses: We can say the new 24-70/2.8 II is $400-500 more expensive than Nikon's equivalent. But it's also a better lens. So people, to be honest we have to play fair. The 24-120/4.0 VR is every but as good as the 24-105, only...well....it's a better, newer lens. That's why it's higher. Because it covers more range and screw Ken Rockwell. I know that's where most of you people get your info. The reason the following lens from Nikon are MORE EXPENSIVE is because they are NEWER AND BETTER GLASS than Canon's equivalent:

Nikon 50/1.4g or 50/1.8g (VERY GOOD BTW)
85/1.8g (very good BTW)
28/1.8g (very good BTW)
24/1.4g (amazing BTW)
16-35/4.0vr (amazing BTW)

--Nikon will make a 70-200/4.0VR eventually, just like Canon will make a very good UWA eventually. I had the 17-40L, and while good....it was soft in the corners and had other issues. It's funny how no one mentions the very solid Nikon 28-300VR that sells for about $800-900 used. What does Canon's cost???

Be real and enjoy what you own. Don't let these childish squabbles get in the way of enjoying your camera.
5d2; 17-40L; 35L; 50/1.8 Mk. 1; 70-300 IS; 100mm/2.8

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Why I'm not jumping to Nikon
« Reply #42 on: September 22, 2012, 01:51:18 AM »

Albi86

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 824
Re: Why I'm not jumping to Nikon
« Reply #43 on: September 22, 2012, 03:36:00 AM »
I'm a former 5d2 owner, and these comments/arguments crack me the hell up. I love this site, but there are TOO MANY FOLKS on here compared to NikonRumors. You know why? Canon loyalists are too frustrated fighting amongst themselves.

For the record, I own the D800 and have none of the left AF/greenish-LCD problems that are overblown. It's FAR from perfect, as well, and frankly I really miss the sheer simplicity of the 5d2. That said, Nikon's UWA lenses are far better and that was my reason for switching. I tried out the D600 at Best Buy today for a long, long time. It's a extremely good DSLR. I wish I'd waited on it and saved myself about $850. Is it 90% of 5d3? I don't even know what in the holy hell that means. It is PHENOMENAL for $2,099!!!! That, my friends, is a fact.

Now let's move on to lenses: We can say the new 24-70/2.8 II is $400-500 more expensive than Nikon's equivalent. But it's also a better lens. So people, to be honest we have to play fair. The 24-120/4.0 VR is every but as good as the 24-105, only...well....it's a better, newer lens. That's why it's higher. Because it covers more range and screw Ken Rockwell. I know that's where most of you people get your info. The reason the following lens from Nikon are MORE EXPENSIVE is because they are NEWER AND BETTER GLASS than Canon's equivalent:

Nikon 50/1.4g or 50/1.8g (VERY GOOD BTW)
85/1.8g (very good BTW)
28/1.8g (very good BTW)
24/1.4g (amazing BTW)
16-35/4.0vr (amazing BTW)

--Nikon will make a 70-200/4.0VR eventually, just like Canon will make a very good UWA eventually. I had the 17-40L, and while good....it was soft in the corners and had other issues. It's funny how no one mentions the very solid Nikon 28-300VR that sells for about $800-900 used. What does Canon's cost???

Be real and enjoy what you own. Don't let these childish squabbles get in the way of enjoying your camera.

+100

I meant that it offers 90% of 5D3's functionalities ;)

Anyway I totally agree with your analysis. Switching systems is nothing like the tragedy some people think it is. I think Canon has still the lead on telezooms, and if anyone shoots mostly in the +200mm range, then probably Canon is the best choice. Below that, and especially below 100mm, it's quite another story.

I think many legends concernig Nikon gear start from Canon guys who try them and perceive a different system as wrong and unfriendly, while in 99% of cases it's just different.


ecka

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 849
  • Size matters ;)
    • flickr
Re: Why I'm not jumping to Nikon
« Reply #44 on: September 22, 2012, 04:17:40 AM »
I'm a former 5d2 owner, and these comments/arguments crack me the hell up. I love this site, but there are TOO MANY FOLKS on here compared to NikonRumors. You know why? Canon loyalists are too frustrated fighting amongst themselves.

For the record, I own the D800 and have none of the left AF/greenish-LCD problems that are overblown. It's FAR from perfect, as well, and frankly I really miss the sheer simplicity of the 5d2. That said, Nikon's UWA lenses are far better and that was my reason for switching. I tried out the D600 at Best Buy today for a long, long time. It's a extremely good DSLR. I wish I'd waited on it and saved myself about $850. Is it 90% of 5d3? I don't even know what in the holy hell that means. It is PHENOMENAL for $2,099!!!! That, my friends, is a fact.

Now let's move on to lenses: We can say the new 24-70/2.8 II is $400-500 more expensive than Nikon's equivalent. But it's also a better lens. So people, to be honest we have to play fair. The 24-120/4.0 VR is every but as good as the 24-105, only...well....it's a better, newer lens. That's why it's higher. Because it covers more range and screw Ken Rockwell. I know that's where most of you people get your info. The reason the following lens from Nikon are MORE EXPENSIVE is because they are NEWER AND BETTER GLASS than Canon's equivalent:

Nikon 50/1.4g or 50/1.8g (VERY GOOD BTW)
85/1.8g (very good BTW)
28/1.8g (very good BTW)
24/1.4g (amazing BTW)
16-35/4.0vr (amazing BTW)

--Nikon will make a 70-200/4.0VR eventually, just like Canon will make a very good UWA eventually. I had the 17-40L, and while good....it was soft in the corners and had other issues. It's funny how no one mentions the very solid Nikon 28-300VR that sells for about $800-900 used. What does Canon's cost???

Be real and enjoy what you own. Don't let these childish squabbles get in the way of enjoying your camera.

I thought that the purpose of the forum is to discuss, share opinions, ask, learn, advice, comment, argue, critique ... all in polite way of course ;). I know many people are not critical about their gear and they cannot give an objective advice for someone asking for it. "Buy whatever camera from whatever manufacturer and pay whatever they ask for their lenses, because they all are awesome" - doesn't help. "Want a FF camera with great UWA lens? - pick something with a Nikon 14-24/2.8G on it" - is much better. No need to tell everybody to shut up. :D
« Last Edit: September 22, 2012, 04:31:12 AM by ecka »
FF + primes !

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Why I'm not jumping to Nikon
« Reply #44 on: September 22, 2012, 04:17:40 AM »