So I guess this poll shows that Nikon's new high-end bodies aren't winning over many Canon users. It definitely doesn't attract the point-and-shoot crowd with its high price.
This is why Canon is taking its good old time with the 5D2 while coming out with the XSi and the 1000D, because the cheap cameras are the real cash-cows.
how about quality control of Canon vs. Nikon? Canon back focusing lenses,bodies and dead pixel on the sensors, thats another reason why made me think to switch to Nikon. Its really hard to get a good copy of canon lenses.
I find nikon bodies and lenses more rugged and durable than Canon.
I wish Canon make the paint of their bodies semi gloss with textured like on Nikons to Hide scratches
I may buy it depending on the "kit" offer: according to Nikon Japan the offer is D700、AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor ED 24-120mm F3.5-5.6G. Body: 295,000yen, kit: 360,000yen.
A new 5D is 195,000 right now...
If I proceed, it won't really be a "switch" as I intend to keep my Canon stuff.
brainiac wrote:
I might go Ben Hur (one foot on each horse). I think I will probably get a D700. The clincher was the built-in flash.
I was thinking the same... always loved Nikon its a shame they took their time bringing out the D3/D700 full-frames otherwise I would never had switched to Canon and the 1Ds
Nikon is now producing some excellent cameras...especially the newly-announced D700...and the SB 900 looks to be equally as impressive....this coming from a Nikon shooter of some 25 years before switching to Canon 5 years ago.
As a studio owner, I have invested heavily in Canon pro bodies and L Series lenses so making a complete switch to Nikon would be cost-prohibitive...but...I may have to purchase a D700 and D300 and some AFS lenses since all of the photographers who work with me/for me are Nikon owners.
I have to invest in additional cameras and lenses for the upcoming high school and youth league seasons and I was waiting to see what Canon would come up with before making the final decision.
Canon doesn't have anything new to compete with the D300 or D700...with regards to price or performance. The proclaimed high ISO performance of the D700...if it's anything like the D3...is just too attractive for a sports/action shooter to dismiss merely because of brand loyalty.
Nikon is doing everything possible to reclaim its share of the professional market...once dominated by Canon...and Canon is just sitting by allowing it to happen.
I think we can agree that Nikon has overtaken Canon in camera bodies at this point .. albeit at higher prices. Is it fair to compare a 40D at $1000 to a D300 at $1600? But, Canon doesn't have anything to compete with the D300 at that price point ... yet. Maybe the 5D? But other than its FF sensor, what does the 5D have that can give the D300 some competition? I can't see anything in the specs that will.
But, who is ahead still .. in terms of quality lenses, covering all sorts of focal lengths and price ranges? I think its still Canon.
Charlemagne wrote:
I am sooo on the fence about this.. I mean.. my excuse before was no full frame, then Nikon put the D3 out... next I said there were no Tilt and shift options for Nikon.. then they put out two T&S lenses (micro I may add), my next complaint was nothing that great in order of fast primes.. I swear if they put out faster and better primes from 24mm up to 135mm.. I will file a lawsuit to have a judge order Nikon out of my HEAD!! I mean they answered just about everyone one of my gripes... all they have yet to do is lay a D3 and D700 under my pillow while I was asleep.. Come on Canon.. I am running out of excuses not to go! But in all seriousness I will be staying with Canon.. I LOVE my results from the 5D and 1DmkIII and my fast primes.
I'm in the same boat. Reasons I'm considering the switch include
1. Flash system- I use Nikon flashes for my portable kit and it would be great to be able to use those same flashes on my camera. The Nikon flash system has always been considered better than Canon. Canon has had plenty of time to improve their flashes but they just aren't that consistent.
2. I really love my Canon primes. I try to use the 85 and 35 whenever I can. If it wasn't for those two lenses I would probably switch today. My zooms (24-105, 70-200, 100-400) on the other hand never seemed really sharp. I don't expect them to match the primes but from what I've read Nikon zooms are sharper. With the tilt-shift lenses Nikon is pretty close to offering a comparable lens across the board and even offers a couple lenses that Canon can't compete with.
3. Better high iso performance.
4. I guess there is also some dissatisfaction with the way Canon has dealt with their pro photographer market the past couple of years. I was encouraged by the introduction of the 200 f2 and 16-35 with better corner sharpness. It seemed like they were listening to the needs of photographers and were providing tools that might not be the most profitable for them. Now it seems like they are once again focused on the Rebel market. The whole Mark III situation was a complete disaster.
Canon will have an answer for the Nikon bodies but it is going to take some serious work on their part.
I've had a foot in each for 7 months now. The only problem with that is when you have
an itch, it can get real expensive to scratch it. (can you say 14-24 f2.8)
man, i'm so jealous of that d700. if Nikon had a 65mpe-equivalent lens, I'd probably be switching. I'm actually quite tired of waiting on Canon. Esp after dealing with the whole 1d III fiasco for close to 1 year.
in the meantime, my 5d still works. however, the weak AF system always peeved me off. the AF system and maybe live view are the two things I'd really like in the next gen 5d. everything else is icing on the cake.
I am an EX-Nikon, Ex-Leica user. Although Nikon appears to have a bit of an edge in technology in their bodies, their lens lineup is very weak in specific areas. If i wanted to purchase something like a 28mm f2 lens, I could easily get a 28 Summicron from Leica or a 24/35 1.4l from canon. Nikon has their 28mm f1.4 which is out of production and costs 3000K used(equivalent cost to a hand made German Leica lens). Typically, the high end Nikon lenses that are still made in Japan are very expensive and hard to get. Try and get a 135 or 200mm USM type lens from Nikon.
For me, the decision was clear, it was made primarily on the basis of lens cost and availability. I am certainly not going to make a decision based on the techno merry-go- round and highly depreciating market of digital cameras!!
I did return my 3-week-old 40D yesterday. While I found the camera itself much more responsive, speedy AF, and all that extra feature-jazz, I just couldn't bring myself to like that weak LCD. Even photos that are actually sharp (viewing on my computer) look unsharp and weird on the LCD. I guess the lower pixel density on the 40D LCD has something to do with it? And, after just 3 weeks of only occasional use, I had 2 or 3 specks of dust in the viewfinder.
So, I'm back to my old D60 and am eagerly awaiting the new Canon 50D. Hope its actually a step up from the 40D, with a much better LCD, better quality control (shutter mechanism) and better sealing against dust.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Come on this is the real world, we don't care about working pros, I'm a bludging amateur and I love spending my cash and talking a whole lot of trash.
You do realise most of the crap written by us here is hot air and spleen venting. At the end of the day hardly any one will actually swap.
That is so true
It is just like... Look the new toys are out... When I was a kid we always wanted the latest sneakers... And those who couldn't afford them talked all day about it
saaketham wrote:
I did return my 3-week-old 40D yesterday. While I found the camera itself much more responsive, speedy AF, and all that extra feature-jazz, I just couldn't bring myself to like that weak LCD. Even photos that are actually sharp (viewing on my computer) look unsharp and weird on the LCD. I guess the lower pixel density on the 40D LCD has something to do with it? And, after just 3 weeks of only occasional use, I had 2 or 3 specks of dust in the viewfinder.
My understanding is that the crappy images in the LCD are more due to the overcompressed/low resolution thumbnail that the viewer uses vs working with the actual
shot image. If this is true, slapping the D300's LCD on the camera wouldn't help.
Personally, I think that there is something to this because you should be able
to get a pretty good idea when viewing the image at 1:1 magnification. Instead
we get blurred crap. But, at least the colors are better than on the 5D
i'm into both sets but i'm using the nikon set consistantly and its growing. the canon set has been pared down to the basics now and the frame counter has not moved as of late.
Its really hard to get a good copy of canon lenses. 
)
But in all seriousness I will be staying with Canon.. I LOVE my results from the 5D and 1DmkIII and my fast primes.
Hope its actually a step up from the 40D, with a much better LCD, better quality control (shutter mechanism) and better sealing against dust.