Smousefam5 wrote:
I wanted to get into photography as a senior in high school In 1982. My family bought me a Nikon EM for Christmas that year. I took it and the 50mm 1.8E lens.
Similar story 1983, Nikon FM2 50mm 1.8 AI-S. I think I wanted it just because they were cool, which they were. they had an ad where it froze a bullet with the 1/4000 shutterspeed. I was also enamored by the fact that it would work other than the meter totally mechanically.
Later on I got an F3HP as a second body, but I liked the FM2 better.
I still have the FM2 and it still works.
when I got my first DSLR it was a Canon XSi, then I got a 40D which I really liked. I got a D200 then, and started playing with my old lenses. Then when the D7100 came out I got a smoking deal on a D7000. Once I started using that it blew everything else away. So I sold all that stuff.
Now I have a D7200, the D7000.
After hopping around between brands quite a bit over the last several years I picked up a Z6 in October. This one's going to stick around, I just need to build up my lens collection.
I went:
Sony a100 > Sony a6000 > Fuji X-T20 > Sony a7 II > Fuji X-T2 > back to the a7 II > Nikon Z6
Started with a Minolta SRT-102. With a tiny window, you could see the F stop setting through the finder!. Evolved through a variety of Minoltas as they added auto-exposure then auto-focus with the Maxxums. Even through the mount change. Seemed like everyone had developing/printing operation but I found a not quite local camera store which had a good range of film and competent if not completely fast/convenient developing.
The first dslrs were out of budget but we ended up with an early Canon A series Powershot and Fuji S602.
First dslr was a KM 7D to carryover at least some of the Maxxum lenses I had. Very intuitive, great ergonomics. But KM was flopping and Sony picking them up made good press but slow progress in keeping up with dslr features, prices and performance.
So:
D200 (better feel/handling than contemporary Canons) then D7200.
But while keeping the Nikon dslr stuff, for size and travel convenience:
Sony NEX6 and now A6400.
However, if I ever jump headlong into Full fram, the Nikon may be a possibility
For me, it started (won’t start at the very beginning but will cut to late-2000’s) with camera bodies, interchangeable lens Nikon D3200, Nikon P900 bridge superzoom, added Sony a6000, a6300, a6500, then more Nikon 750, 500, 850, D3s. Then included Canon 5dm4, 1dx2. And, just recently added Olympus m4/3 em10iii. Am I looking at that A9? You bet! And the D6 and the 1dxm3...
When I began adding Canon to the mix, my priority switched to glass. Canon had the 65mm super macro, no equivalent in Nikon glass, so needed Canon body. And now incorporated Olympus 60mm macro on m4/3 sensor body. Okay if I don’t list glass?
For me, the equipment and tech is all fluid. it is for me as my interests change and evolve. We can move in and out from system to system, body to body, lens to lens, based on what we see what we want to shoot. It stretches me and my experience in learning photography.
KankRat wrote:
I think I wanted it just because they were cool, which they were. they had an ad where it froze a bullet with the 1/4000 shutterspeed.
Why, there are indeed people who actually make such pictures. They shoot the gun in absolute darkness, then use a special flash that only gives light for a millionth of second.
Anitajo24 wrote:
When I began adding Canon to the mix, my priority switched to glass. Canon had the 65mm super macro, no equivalent in Nikon glass, so needed Canon body.
Nikon never bothered to make such a piece of glas because you can just use a regular macro lens, like the AF 60mm f2.8 micro, on a bellows, like the PB-5.
Theres of course also extension rings, too.
You cannot use an AF-S 60mm f2.8 micro, because on a bellow or extension ring there arent any electronic contacts.
AFAIK the 65mm from Canon is also all manual, though.
The glas thats actually unique for Canon is their tilt/shifts, which are superior to the Nikon ones, and of course their 50mm f1.0, 50mm f1.2, and 85mm f1.2, all with (slow) autofocus. Nikon only has a 50mm f1.2, and its manual, and theres also a Mitakon 85mm f1.2, which is all mechanical and reportedly extremely hard to correctly focus.
I’ve had many systems over the years, including a brief affair with a Nikon F Photomic in the mid-1960’s. I returned to Nikon with the D800 and have used the brand ever since. I now own a Z7 and have been very satisfied - primarily because of Nikon’s recent concentration on producing lenses with relatively light weight, modest aperture, but very high image quality. Ticks a lot of boxes for an elderly photographer!
I started photography about 4-5 years ago , no idea what camera to buy I was searching online and came across this forum. It was Will's D7k thread that got me to buy a D7000 , then upgraded to D500 and then D850. Keep thinking of switching over to Sony mainly for the A9
Btw ever heard about the Camera Axe, or the Stopshot to name a few?
2 sensors and a programmable trigger which fires the camera and a normal speedlight to freeze a bullet in flight?
Technology evolves, just like lenses do
Nikon never bothered to make such a piece of glas because you can just use a regular macro lens, like the AF 60mm f2.8 micro, on a bellows, like the PB-5.
Theres of course also extension rings, too.
You cannot use an AF-S 60mm f2.8 micro, because on a bellow or extension ring there arent any electronic contacts.
AFAIK the 65mm from Canon is also all manual, though.
The glas thats actually unique for Canon is their tilt/shifts, which are superior to the Nikon ones, and of course their 50mm f1.0, 50mm f1.2, and 85mm f1.2, all with (slow) autofocus. Nikon only has a 50mm f1.2, and its manual, and theres also a Mitakon 85mm f1.2, which is all mechanical and reportedly extremely hard to correctly focus.
Lots of macro use manual focus, so it’s not a game changer if there is no AF.
The Canon 65mm doesn’t have AF, nor MF. You select magnification and set on a focus rail to move in and out for focus. Or handheld, more patience, you lean in or out towards your subject. I purchased a Mitakon lens 4-4.5X with Nikon mount this past year. You see? It’s about the glass for me. Once I have all the bodies, I can try all the lenses.
I have those Nikon macros you listed. Just haven’t used on a bellows. I also have the Canon TS-E’s and some Nikon PC’s.
I’ve tried the extension tubes but cannot capture the quality I prefer. Need to work more with them. Currently, I added a Raynox 250 to the mix for all lenses. Very excited.
Thank you again for your comments. There is so much to see using different systems. :-)
I bought my first own Nikon in late 1982, when the old FM2 was 100 Deutschmark off because the new FM2 was ready for the Christmas Business. I did not care, nor did I probably even understand the (minor) difference.
Nikon at that time was my favourite because their cameras and especially their AI lenses felt really really good. I wanted a mechanical camera with a meter, so contenders were OM1n and Pentax MX. Both clearly nice ones, especially the Olympus I found looked really cool. Nikon made it because I liked their controls better, it had Aperture and Shutter Speed displayed in the finder and it felt best in hand. The camera is still in my possession.
I will always have a sweet spot for F type cameras. The DF I cannot imagine selling.
Sauseschritt wrote:
...
I cared, lol. The new G 1.8 primes offered a nice jump in performance over the old D lenses and were reasonably priced. I was shooting Canon, a company that was only releasing super expensive L zooms when I switched. They only updated the consumer gear after I left. My main lens at the time was the 17-40 and it wasn't great -- the 18-35G was a much better performer and affordable. So... better, newer lenses, better sensor tech and more affordable. Who wouldn't want that?
Who cares about that ?
Just got into Nikon earlier this year. Shot Canon since around 2008 or so, but I was searching for a smaller alternative to 1D IV + 500L and wasn't hugely satisfied with the Tamron/Sigma options so tried a D500 + 200-500. Loved the D500 (the 200-500 was pretty OK too) and when I got my hands on the 500PF it was game over. Sold the Canon stuff and got a D750 + some lenses as well. Picked up a Z6 not too long ago and have been very pleased with it so the D750 will be sold soon.
Nikon seems to catch a lot of grief on these forums lately and while I can understand some points people make I think that overall they are doing a really good job. Between the new Z system, the PF lenses, and the D500, I really couldn't wish for more. Well, maybe a 600PF.
I switched to Nikon in 1988 when I started doing underwater photography as Nikon with its Nikonos cameras and UW lenses and strobes was the only option. Later went to using a housing but stayed with Nikon SLR's to have TTL compatibility with the Nikon compatible strobes.
There are two reasons I still am investing in Nikon gear and they are the D850 and the 500mm PF.
Take these out of the equation and I would have switched back to Canon. I shot 100% Canon from 2004 to 2007 as their DSLR cameras provided far superior high ISO performance. Switched back in 2008 with the arrival of the D3 and the 14-24mm f/2.8 and 24-70mm f/2.8 lenses.
It all started for me with the F-601 thinking that I could make great pics without understanding photography. I bought Nikon because 2 colleagues from work were using Nikon (the F-801).
Lost kind of my interest till I bought the D-70s followed by:
- D200
- D300
- D750
- D800e
- D4
- D4s
- D810
- D5
- D850
- Z7
I still own the last 3 of the list and along with the glass is there simply no reason to look for other brands as this gear gives me the shots I am after. Nikon is a tech company and lacks marketing and a proper product manager but still happy with the stuff they produce.
My first SLR was an Olympus OM-10 that my parents bought me for Christmas one year when I was a freshman in high school. I worked after school and managed to build up a pretty nice Olympus system for a teenager. Then I went to college, got an apartment i the student ghetto, and somebody broke in and stole all my Olympus gear. This must have been in the mid 1980's. So I needed to start from scratch. I looked at all the available systems and only Canon and Nikon made all the lenses I thought I'd ever want, (I knew Olympus was out because they had no long, fast teles, or longer than normal macro lenses at that time). So it came down to the bodies. I knew I wanted TTL flash metering, because I had come to really appreciate that on my Olympus cameras. At that time the only Canon body that offered TTL flash was the T90, a camera that was really ahead of its time, but just didn't appeal to me, especially the price! Nikon on the other hand had the FE-2, a less expensive camera that reminded me of my old OM-2. So I went with Nikon. I thought about switching twice. Once, when auto-focus first came out and Canon was blowing Nikon away in af (definitely not the case today) and again with the latest Sony mirrorless offering besting Nikon's mirrorless af. I'm still with Nikon though. Still hopeful that Nikon will meet Sony's challenge just as they did Canon's.
