CanadaMark Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
HS-LD wrote:
I've shot both systems as well. The Canon bodies seem really expensive for what they are. The D500 is a bargain for what it is. (As one example.)
Lens wise, I am disappointed that Nikon makes the primes in China. I shot the D primes in the 90's and I have a sentimental attachment to them. They still deliver the goods for me. But I tend not to stress my prime shooting too hard. Usually weddings. I would probably upgrade if the new G primes were not $700-800 each AND made in China.
It's a lot easier for me to outfit a DX system with Canon lenses:
10-22,
17-55 IS
70-200 F4 IS
All made in Japan.
For Nikon, the Tokina 11-16mm 2.8 is better than or equal to the 12-24mm Nikkor, the Sigma 17-50 OS is better than or equal to the 17-55 Nikkor (and both are 60% cheaper) and of course the 70-200 F4VR is a winner but $300 more than the Canon. Both are equally as sharp. I realize that this is just a DX example and things might be different in FX land.
But the D500 is what I've been waiting for since my D300. So I'm shooting my D primes and my 3rd party zooms... ...Show more →
Nikon makes a 10-24, 17-55 and a (better) 70-200/4 as well, so how is it "a lot easier" to outfit a DX kit from another manufacturer when they offer virtually the same thing? Why does the geographic location of the manufacturing facility matter when they are using equipment and procedures the same as any other facility? You also know that not all the workers employed in the Japan facilities are Japanese, right? And that where they are assembled is almost certainly not be where every part was manufactured?
Third parties make some lenses that are cheaper and equal to or better than the Canon equivalent as well - do you still buy Canon lenses in those instances?
Interesting you mention the 17-55 IS, one of the most notoriously unreliable lenses around, made in Japan. Failure rates have been as high as 25% reported by lens rental companies with large sample sizes. You mention it as part of your easy DX kit, so I am wondering if you rank country of assembly above actual quality/reliability in all instances, or just when convenient.
All Nikon primes are not made in China.
The 1.8 G-primes are not all $700-800 each. In fact half of them are quite a bit less than that. Most if not all outperform the Canon equivalent.
Can you point me to objective data on Canon lenses being "better across the board"? To date I have not seen a single piece of data to back this up, and just by looking at the big tele's and many of the primes we can already see this is not true.
Do you have any objective evidence that the geographic location of the lens factory has an impact on quality and/or performance? One example that comes to mind is the Nikon 105/2.8 VR MACRO. It switched production from Japan to China, and there has been no difference observed between copies of those lenses made in different countries.
Your personal experience and opinion are one thing, but you sure do make a lot of comments that would benefit from some objective, reliable data that I would be very interested in reading.
I think the only fair statement is that both companies have had their fair share of issues come off of Japanese production lines haha.
|