Upload & Sell: Off
| p.9 #9 · p.9 #9 · The mirrorless camera Nikon should have built, but won't. |
If you enjoy shooting lower-quality zooms, then Canon is a good choice. They excel at zooms.
However, Nikon's FL ED 70-200 zoom is better than Canon's.
Canon's 200-400 is good, but I doubt it will be #1 when Nikon comes out with the FL ED version of their own elder 200-400.
Every Nikkor super-tele prime is better than Canon's.
If I were going to make an either/or decision, it would be to the better end, Nikon, not the other way around.
Each brand is constantly improving their products. Every few years they come up with a much improved version, beating previous gen products by themselves and equivalents from other brands, and then usually it became other brand's turn. Since you said "Canon's 200-400 is good, but I doubt it will be #1 when Nikon comes out with the FL ED version of their own elder 200-400", I suppose you do realize that is happening. One can cheery pick the best of latest gen products and call other brands inferior, but in a longer time frame, I can't see one brand has clear advantage on everything.
At this moment....Sony's 24-70/2.8 seems to be among the best ( note, I am not saying THE best) of mid-range zoom, Sony's 35 1.4, Canon 35/1.4 II seems to be much better than Nikon's AFS 35/1.4. Some E mount Zeiss lens (say 21/2.8, 25/2) are optically excellent yet small and lightweight.
Maybe you have a full set of Nikon super-tele, but I don't. The longest lens I have (still have) is AFS 80-400 and is hardly used. Plus I am NOT a pro, if I shoot AF super-tele, I might still go for Canon since those lens seems much cheaper and wildly available, and I have seen lots of very good wildlife, sports pictures taken with Canon super-tele anyway, despite they are inferior to Nikon.
Since I have not yet decided where to spend my money for a good mid-range zoom, I got an old Contax Zeiss 35-70/3.4 and very very pleased with its' optical quality. Many Sony shooter use very best lens from Leica R/M, Zeiss, Nikon, Canon...
I sometime shoot timelapse, the Sony camera is to me the best tools to do that, it has its limitations(slow SD write speed) but overall much better and easier than using Nikon/Canon unless I use complicated setup (add more bulk). Silent shutter is also very important to me when shooting timelapse. Many people might not see the underlying tech that enable 20fps is also important to silent shutter.
I do overseas travel regularly, size and weight is an issue for air travels (size & weight of full-frame Sony mirrorless actually just go back to what film-SLRs were). For MY use, a system is consist of a good FX, DX and also a good compact body (I usually travel with all 3, although not necessarily carry them all every single day). Nikon has too many lens incompatibility issues, different battery/charger, different flash (Nikon 1, which I own and it is not compatible with my SB800/600/400, and even with the FT-1 adapter, Nikon 1 is not compatible with all AFS lens). Who wants to travel with 3 sets of batteries, 3 chargers, different memory cards (Nikon 1 is micro-SD, and CF/QXD/SD), different flash?
The bottom line is, if Nikon does not address their shooter's (ever evolving) needs, they will start looking elsewhere. I have been Nikon SLR shooter for 20+ years since I was around 14. In my case, incompatibility between their own systems opened the floodgate. The title of this thread is "The mirrorless camera Nikon should have built...", and I totally agree with that. They should make good serious mirrorless, compatible with and complementing their DSLR line up, instead of building the way over-priced Nikon 1 system ( I welcome CX system but Nikon 1 is NOT compatible with their FX/DX system). If they did that, I would remain shooting exclusively with Nikon and I wouldn't have ventured into other brands (and discovered the world is big).