KenBates wrote:
Got to disagree! I have found mid range ($600 or so ) nikon glass to be inferior, in fact I would abandon canon in a minute and just shoot my d1x if I could come close to the performance of my 17-40L in anything less than a $1600 lens! and yes, I have spent countless hours at the camera shop testing inside and out, even bying and returning!
I love my d1x user interface , dislike the 20Ds "reliability" (it seems to suprise me with a changed setting or an error 99 every couple of weeks or so) but cant afford to pay $1600 for an 17-35 when its no better at f4 than my 17-40!
Oh yes, the cheaper canon glass is awful, nikon wins there!...Show more →
several 17-35s have been sold this month at 1000-1100 dollars, the best is never cheap. and at a stop faster they have to be more money. A Sigma 15-30 sold here at FM for 190dollars , it had a small Very small scratch on the front coating , there are good deals everywhere and lenses don't have to be new to work perfectly forever
Cheap glass will "kill" any camera so not a valid comparison.
Nikon and Canon "Cheap" glass with the possible exception of both manufacturers version of the 1.8 50 MM lens is just that ---- cheap and not very good especially on a pro camera.
I agree people might like or dislike the interface / controls on either body but do I really expect people to say sweeping statements like "Canon Glass is horrible".
In addition to the 17-40 mm mentioned previously these Canon Lenses will stack up against any comparable lenses by other makes.
Canon 24 - 70 2.8
Canon IS 70-200 2.8
Canon IS 24-105 (new one)
Canon 400 MM DO (I don't think Nikon even has a DO type lens yet)
Canon 75-300 DO
Canon 300 2.8 IS
Canon 400 / 500 /600 super teles -- Not even sure if Nikon has a 600 Tele.
Canon 85 /135 and 35 mm fast primes
T/S lenses 24 / 90 (No such animal as far as Nikon is concerned)
Now of course Nikon has excellent glass but for people to switch based purely on the glass available --there must IMO be something wrong with their technique.
Nikons flash system was better than Canon's TTL but the new E-TTL seems to have narrowed that particular gap.
Don't get me wrong -- I'm not trying to start one of those stupid "Brand wars" -- but just pointing out that although there are perfectly valid reasons why any photographer would want to switch either way but in general Glass IMO doesn't really seem to be a valid reason.
I've used and LIKE the D2X -- I've also said that for a lot of people the interface is more intuitive than Canon's but any competant shooter these days using EITHER BRAND should be able to get top quality pics even if the workflow will be different in each case.
Happy New Year to everyone and great shooting in 2006. Looking forward to some more of those great train shots I see on the Nikon Forum.
EITHER BRAND should be able to get top quality pics even if the workflow will be different in each case.
I can't disagree with much of what you have said Kyle and people will have their own particular reasons for shooting with either. Be it real or just an impression it doesn't matter.
When my best friend decided to finally go DSLR he ended getting the 20D. Fine camera but I just don't like using it. It works for him quite fine. Bottom line when we are out shooting or discussing gear, it's rarely ever Nikon vs Canon. Mostly technique with either gear we have or discussing what we "need" to get next.
We need to realize most of the time, the image is brand ignorant and so are the people that view and appreciate it.
Tom Conte wrote:
For what it's worth, I'm very happy with the D200 (well, except for that focus illumination thing, that's the most vexing to me, especially after having used a D2X that did individually light the focus-locked AF point).
Tom
That's too bad....I loved the focus illumination points on the D2X and was hoping it would be the same on the D200...well...it's always gonna be something..
"T/S lenses 24 / 90 (No such animal as far as Nikon is concerned)"
Nikkor 85mm f2.8 is a tilt/shift isn't it? Also a terrific macro lens.
I'm in the process of switching from Canon 1Ds2 to a D2x and so far love the new camera system. Many of the controls and operation in general make a lot more sense and are easier and quicker for me to use. I bought the system to use the 70-180 macro and 200-400 lenses - nothing in Canon's bag to compare - and am finding lots of other nice surprises.
mjmetts, congrats on your D200. you posted some good stuff there...looks real good. btw, i also have the sigma 30/1.4 in the canon mount...very nice piece of glass.
tom conte, amazing! i could have written your post on the interface likes & dislikes almost word for word...right down to the unpainted hot shoe and lens mounting procedure
i would add to the list of likes:
• auto ISO feature
• 4 user setting banks.
• ability to leave the top LCD illuminated
• the "easy exposure compensation" feature
• viewfinder gridlines
to the list of dislikes, i would add:
• the two-handed approach to quickly change ISO or WB (on the 20D, you just press one button and then spin the wheel or the dial with one hand)
• image magnification on review involves a mixture of buttons and dials...i'll get used to it but the canon method is easier
• disabling an external flash from firing (but leaving the AF assist illuminator on) is a flash custom function instead of a custom function in the camera
Tom Conte wrote:
I do have to say that the EF 85 f/1.2L is my favorite lens in the whole wide world. Mounted on my 1Ds, the two made a magical machine for portraiture.
Tom
That's a 'who's who' of HW you've ditched! .
I'm amazed that you "ended up" with the D200. As someone who has used the high end pro stuff, how/why did you decide on a D200?
Kind regards
JohnG
happy with my D200 .................but still miss 8 FPS.
Hey Michael. I read your post with interest as pretty much all of what you have said is what has applied to myself as well. The image quality and the megapixels are now close enough that it's a mute point .. but the interface and "zen" is where it "is".
So far I'm delighted that I had the gumption to jump ship - and while I want to hang onto my C stuff ... the nikon glass song is hard .... no imposible to resist for long I'm discovering.
Every day I change my mind at least twice about putting up the rest of the canon stuff for sale.
So many black lenses ... so little cash ... so little willpower
I
t good to hear mirror sentiments. That sigma lens is sharp! I would like to get one but am thinking about a film body ... so the 35 will likely win out.
Now for a more dangerous question .... so what you think about the different communities behind the brands, eh?
Pavel wrote:
Hey Michael. I read your post with interest as pretty much all of what you have said is what has applied to myself as well. The image quality and the megapixels are now close enough that it's a mute point .. but the interface and "zen" is where it "is".
So far I'm delighted that I had the gumption to jump ship - and while I want to hang onto my C stuff ... the nikon glass song is hard .... no imposible to resist for long I'm discovering.
Every day I change my mind at least twice about putting up the rest of the canon stuff for sale.
So many black lenses ... so little cash ... so little willpower
I
t good to hear mirror sentiments. That sigma lens is sharp! I would like to get one but am thinking about a film body ... so the 35 will likely win out.
Now for a more dangerous question .... so what you think about the different communities behind the brands, eh? ...Show more →
Well I've found really helpful and really unhelpful people on both sides of the fence. If I was going to generalize I would say that the Canon guys are a little more defensive about choosing Canon. I.E. They have so many reasons lined up to tell you why Canon is the better brand, Nikon guys don't care about that as much. I have seen some Nikon guys saying things like: "Nikon people are more creative and they spend much more time shooting." Which just isn't true. Pixel peepers and gear nerds are on both sides and a brand has nothing to do with creativity.
johnnymg wrote:
Tom,
...
I'm amazed that you "ended up" with the D200. As someone who has used the high end pro stuff, how/why did you decide on a D200?
Not sure why you're amazed. It's rather easy to explain.
The 1D-series is more than I need, I am not a pro. The bodies are too heavy to tote around. I don't need 8fps of the 1D / 1DmkII. I did love the image quality of the 1Ds, but its "OS side" was painfully slow. The 1Ds mkII is out of my financial reach right now.
The D30/60/10D/20D and 5D all missed the mark in being photographic tools for me. The D30 and D60 had painfully bad autofocus. The 10D also had its AF problems. The 20D was OK, but the small viewfinder was a pain. As for the 5D, I loved the image side, but I disliked the camera side.
The D2X is a fine camera, but also more camera than I need.
The D200 is rather unique in being a true light-weight yet well-built, capable camera in the same spirit as the F100 or the EOS 3. That is what I've been looking for in digital, and how I ended up here. (Apparently I'm not alone.)
If Canon were to come out with a detachable-grip 1-series class camera that was FF, I would be tempted back to C land. But I doubt that will happen any time soon. The 5D is their interpretation of the needs of a serious amateur like me. For me, they missed the mark.
I like the D200 for many of the same reasons. The bottom line is that it's a very capable 'little' camera. I haven't used it enough to fully understand/appreciate it but so far so good.
That being said I may pick up a 'cheap' D2H to fulfill my machine gun fixation.
A second-hand D2H is a great idea, given how reasonably priced these are right now on the used market (check out KEH, for instance). For sport shooting, it's a perfect camera.
mjmetts,
Thanx for the detailed write up. I've been waiting for some one to take the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 plunge and share their thoughts. I just placed an order for my lens from Sigma4less.com. Thanx again.
I shot Nikon for many years and loved the interface. I had a hard time with the Canon layout on my friend's rigs. It really does boil down to what you are used to. But....in October of 2003, Nikon failed to give me what I needed, a true 35mm format camera that worked correctly with all my lenses.
So I painfully switched. At first, I thought, "What have I done?" The menus and layout on the 1-series did not appeal to me at all. The ones on the 10D, were much faster and easier.
Now I have the 5D, the camera I wanted Nikon to make all along, and I am super fast on it. The D200 looks great. Except for the lousy Canon-like eyepiece, it is like my favorite Nikon, the F100. As you might be guessing, I don't care much for the larger bodies. I do mountaineering, outdoor & adventure photography for a living, fat cameras have no place in my world.
So a small part of me is envious that you all have the D200 to use. But then I use my 24 1.4, 35 1.4 and 85 1.2 on my 5D and realize that it just does not get better then that. The AF on the 5D is wicked fast and really accurate, even in low light.
I have no regrets in switching. Because I can adapt to a layout, but not the loss of a major portion of my vision.
If Canon were to come out with a detachable-grip 1-series class camera that was FF, I would be tempted back to C land. But I doubt that will happen any time soon. The 5D is their interpretation of the needs of a serious amateur like me. For me, they missed the mark.
Don't kid your self guys, the 5D is a killer, well built, well designed pro camera. I have some 16,000 frames on mine now and will pickup a 2nd one soon. I use it day in day out for my work, aka: Day job and for me, there is no better camera. Light, fast and fabulous full frame!
He isn't kidding anybody. It's not a knock on you because you own the camera. I never understand the defending to the death of ones purchase. Silly.
If you have sold yourself on having FF and it's a "MUST" for you then fine. But for others $3k on a semi prosumer body makes no sense.
The reason the D200 is so popular is that it's an item that Canon has been missing in their lineup. 20D was the worst camera I have ever owned (again that's my take and there are plenty of happy users and good for them) and is a step below the D200 and a step above the D70s.
Nikon has done a good job of making a lineup that makes a little more sense then Canon. You've got your entry level D50, your intermediate D70s, prosumer D200, ultra fast smaller file size D2Hs and pro D2X.
Film_Ruled wrote:
Don't kid your self guys, the 5D is a killer, well built, well designed pro camera. I have some 16,000 frames on mine now and will pickup a 2nd one soon. I use it day in day out for my work, aka: Day job and for me, there is no better camera. Light, fast and fabulous full frame!
I emphatically disagree, but to each his own. For me, the 5D has a prosumer build with the same body in essence as a 20D. The VF is not 100% coverage, and yet they deleted the pop-up flash to, I suppose, make it appear more "pro". I think that's cynical marketing on their part. I wanted more info in the viewfinder, like Nikon provides, e.g., shooting mode (PASM), ISO, etc. I wanted more switches and less menu diving. I wanted a camera with a frigging metal bottom, and a solid CF card door, not plastic, for $3k.
So for me the 5D was a killer alright. It killed my loyalty to Canon. I shot 146 frames with it and sold it at a loss.
.