ReyGay wrote:
Now to Canon users out there, Nikon is not just about the lenses or the cameras, it's the heritage and the current accomplishments. Now, answer this Canon users, does Canon have a camera in outer space? None. Why do Nasa continue using Nikon? They continue contracting Nikon cuz of superior quality in both camera technology and optics (Nasa only uses the best & highest reliability). Can any Canon user top that? Hmmmm...
You know guys, I love my dear Nikon and find that the ergonomic aspect is underapreciated and that their lenses are a pleasant surprise as far as what good quality you get in the low price line - but for the top end I have to still say that the Canon guys have it better.
First they have more variety such as the very nice 70-200. They have it three ways. That is great. Nikon has it two ways but that f 4.0 that canon makes, is a great option to have access to. The non is version of canon is a better choice that what we have because it is still the same great focus as the expensive IS at the top end - ours is a poor focusing second rate - by comparison.
Then there is the aspect where Canon shooters have a more consistent set of lenses as far as technology is concerned. I have to say that it is frustrating as a poor nikon (poor as far as what's in my bank account I mean) aspirant that there are all these fabulous lenses like the 85 f 1.4, the 105 f 2.0 and the 135 f 2.0 - all very expensive and all still without AF-s. That leaves room for improvement for sure.
If I'm ever going to buy another canon body it will be some second hand cheapo, like a 20d for 650 bucks, only so that I can get access to canon's fabulous 300 f 4.0. I really want the Nikon version - but I will not buy one without VR.
That is where I'm crossing the fingers for this years goodies. Some of those great Nikon lenses made thoroughly modern, and for a rounding out of choices in some of the gaps.
We may not like it when we are pissing against the Canon guys - but right now, splitting the hairs - they have it good and we may get a bit on our pants if we are not careful.
backfocus issues nothwistanding.
cogitech wrote:
BTW, an insider from Nikon told my co-worker today that Nikon had exactly jack sh!t for PMA.
That's what I'm thinking...nada, zippo, zilch for the pros. But probably more Coolpix crap and possibly a 17-600mm f 6.3-16 VRIII to satisfy the "true" enthusiasts...
I hope I'm wrong, but I'm definitely not holding my breath...
Then again, watching the idiots argue over the 1D III vs. D3 before anyone's even SEEN one could be mildly entertaining. Oh, wait...that's already happening, in this thread. Embarrassing....
!