FourSeasons wrote:
I am not a pro, but why would one leave canon?... or nikon?
does it mean you can`t good photos anymore with canon? (or with nikon - when better canon cameras came out?).
it baffles me, really, especially seeing this kind of discussion here
I agree completely, if you can't take great photos with Canon (or Nikon) the problem is not the tools.
RikWriter wrote:
I would have, but Nikon still hasn't updated the 80-400 VR or come out with anything else that can rival the 100-400L or the 400 f5.6L, and I can't afford to buy Nikon's big professional telephoto lenses.
+1
I was considering leaving too, but the D3 has failed the cold test .... whereas the 1DMKIII has passed the cold test, as it and its predecessors passed the bad weather test and even submersion in swimming pools and even the sea.
This just proves to me, personally that Nikon are still making CHEAP cameras ~~~ OK I'm still upset with Nikon for having been forced to move from them five years ago, but Canon has proven reliable, until the 1DMKIII ~ and after the 'fix' that's not really too bad.
Odd post considering your post from 9-17-08..."Canon? I never liked them, they had unfair business practices since the 30s, it's nice to see them getting their cumuppances, even if I have to hari kari, they've been shite for toooo long".
gbee wrote:
Canon has proven reliable, until the 1DMKIII ~ and after the 'fix' that's not really too bad.
rhyder wrote:
Odd post considering your post from 9-17-08..."Canon? I never liked them, they had unfair business practices since the 30s, it's nice to see them getting their cumuppances, even if I have to hari kari, they've been shite for toooo long".
Good catch, rhyder. gbee has been notorious for badmouthing Canon up and down the line in FM forums. What a hypocrite.
And if you think because the Nikon stopped working it's a cheap camera, what do you think about this snippet from LL.
" About 85% of the trip's members were shooting with Canon gear, mostly 1Ds MKII. There were a couple of 1D MKII and 5D's, with several people having Rebel XT and XTi bodies as backups.
There were quite a few camera failures, most of them occasioned by our shooting in rain on the first day ashore in The Falklands. The rain was not heavy – more a persistent drizzle than a heavy rain, but it took its toll. In all, 90 minutes of wet shooting produced six 1Ds MKII cameras which stopped working for one reason or another. Three of them recovered after a night of drying out. Three remained hors de combat for the rest of the trip.
Three Canon 5D's died that day, with one subsequent recovery. Two Rebel XTi's lost their rear LCD's, though otherwise continued to work (which is a real hassle, because though one can keep shooting, there's no way to change any settings, or at least to know what the changes are).
We also lost two video cameras, one with a dead sound board and the other a total cardiac arrest. Several lenses bit the dust during the trip, including two Canon 70-210mm f/2.8L IS, and a Canon 28-135mm.
Nikon
There were 5 Nikon users on the trip, with various bodies – mostly D200's. There were no reports of any Nikon problems or failures."
Does this imply the Canon's are all "cheap cameras"?
Whether it was raining or drizzling I would not take my Mark II N or My Mark III out into the rain. I would at least have a camera condom on them. I don't care how water proof they admit to be, they cost too much for me to be simply stupid! I shot all day in the rain at the Kentucky Oaks this summer. Both cameras had waterproof covers on them and neither one of them went bad. Shock! If I owned Nikons they would have covers on them also. Oh, by the way, the professionals that were there that weekend all had covers on their cameras, whether they were shooting nikons or canons.
jbfaulconer wrote:
And if you think because the Nikon stopped working it's a cheap camera, what do you think about this snippet from LL.
" About 85% of the trip's members were shooting with Canon gear, mostly 1Ds MKII. There were a couple of 1D MKII and 5D's, with several people having Rebel XT and XTi bodies as backups.
There were quite a few camera failures, most of them occasioned by our shooting in rain on the first day ashore in The Falklands. The rain was not heavy – more a persistent drizzle than a heavy rain, but it took its toll. In all, 90 minutes of wet shooting produced six 1Ds MKII cameras which stopped working for one reason or another. Three of them recovered after a night of drying out. Three remained hors de combat for the rest of the trip.
Three Canon 5D's died that day, with one subsequent recovery. Two Rebel XTi's lost their rear LCD's, though otherwise continued to work (which is a real hassle, because though one can keep shooting, there's no way to change any settings, or at least to know what the changes are).
We also lost two video cameras, one with a dead sound board and the other a total cardiac arrest. Several lenses bit the dust during the trip, including two Canon 70-210mm f/2.8L IS, and a Canon 28-135mm.
Nikon
There were 5 Nikon users on the trip, with various bodies – mostly D200's. There were no reports of any Nikon problems or failures."
Does this imply the Canon's are all "cheap cameras"?...Show more →
No, just stupid photogs. The story from LL is really funny and but, sadly, those guys are dumb as sticks. I live in the tropics and have been caught in the rain while shooting many times. I just towel it off, tape a plastic bag over it and keep shooting if the images are worth getting wet over. If I'm using a tripod as I do for river and waterfalls shoots, I carry an umbrella and use it for the camera--works great and I can shoot for hours if needed.
I never considered leaving Canon. I've shot Nikons before (friends) and I just don't like button placement or the ergonomics as a whole.
The way I see it, Canon still rules Nikon in the wide-angle prime category - a category I almost exclusively shoot. If Nikon made a 35 1.4, a 24 1.4 and a 50 1.2 that was comparable in price and equal or better in performance then we can start talking. Until then, a 2.8 zoom lens with outstanding image quality just doesn't cut it for me.
chez wrote:
Where have we seen the D3 fail the cold test? If it was that one sports photographer at the football playoff game, then the jury is still out. There were other people at the game with D3's that shot all night long. This guy most likely brought his equipment straight out of a humid warm area onto the field causing condensation within the body.
And if you think because the Nikon stopped working it's a cheap camera, what do you think about this snippet from LL.
" About 85% of the trip's members were shooting with Canon gear, mostly 1Ds MKII. There were a couple of 1D MKII and 5D's, with several people having Rebel XT and XTi bodies as backups.
There were quite a few camera failures, most of them occasioned by our shooting in rain on the first day ashore in The Falklands. The rain was not heavy – more a persistent drizzle than a heavy rain, but it took its toll. In all, 90 minutes of wet shooting produced six 1Ds MKII cameras which stopped working for one reason or another. Three of them recovered after a night of drying out. Three remained hors de combat for the rest of the trip.
Three Canon 5D's died that day, with one subsequent recovery. Two Rebel XTi's lost their rear LCD's, though otherwise continued to work (which is a real hassle, because though one can keep shooting, there's no way to change any settings, or at least to know what the changes are).
We also lost two video cameras, one with a dead sound board and the other a total cardiac arrest. Several lenses bit the dust during the trip, including two Canon 70-210mm f/2.8L IS, and a Canon 28-135mm.
Nikon
There were 5 Nikon users on the trip, with various bodies – mostly D200's. There were no reports of any Nikon problems or failures."
Does this imply the Canon's are all "cheap cameras"?
...Show more →
I agree!! You should make all your decisions based upon one anecdote you read at LL.
Mike Ip wrote:
I never considered leaving Canon. I've shot Nikons before (friends) and I just don't like button placement or the ergonomics as a whole.
The way I see it, Canon still rules Nikon in the wide-angle prime category - a category I almost exclusively shoot. If Nikon made a 35 1.4, a 24 1.4 and a 50 1.2 that was comparable in price and equal or better in performance then we can start talking. Until then, a 2.8 zoom lens with outstanding image quality just doesn't cut it for me.
Dittos on the long end of the telephoto range. Canon's long primes are stellar, and they are considerably less expensive than Nikon's offerings. We don't buy a body, we buy a system.
maverick666 wrote:
Excite what ?. Impress who ?. Why ?. Did I say anything wrong ?.
Maverick666,
Not speaking for Monito, I believe what he meant was your post resurrected an old thread from 8-9 months ago . See, the last post of this thread dated back to February 08 and probably was archived already. So, when you posted on an archived thread, it activated the thread and it becomes current again. No big deal though.
. See, the last post of this thread dated back to February 08 and probably was archived already. So, when you posted on an archived thread, it activated the thread and it becomes current again. No big deal though.