Nikon lens in the USA are covered by warrenty for five years, and you do not have to send a form in, you can registar it online.
You do need pruff of purchase ( a sales reciept) for warrenty work, so put your sales reciept in a safe place in case you need it.
Good luck with your change over to Nikon
hardlyboring wrote:
hmmmm
I am heavily invested in Canon and have looked at and used Nikon stuff many times. Ergonomics IMO are not as good as canon at least for my hands.
As far as pushing and pulling files from all the high end Canon stuff compared to the high end Nikon stuff....it is a wash. Basically the same. Pushing or pulling a shot depends on much more than just the cam you use at this point you can push or pull in both systems way more than you should ever have to.
Price---Canon
Fixing---Canon everytime, and silly fast.
Here is my honest take. Nikon overtook Canon in the fully functional FF cam market a few years ago. Canon still has the take on video. Canon will take the necessary time to research and restructure their camera lines to better Nikon. I am thinking maybe two more years. When that happens everyone will be real sad they switched.
Plus I don't care what Nikon has...nothing beats a 5d + 35L picture. Sorry cannot be done.
People who switched a few years ago are fine but people who switch now are asking for big regrets I think. ...Show more →
Doug,
The comment you made about the 5D + 35L I think is a strong indication of our different philosophy when it comes to what we expect from our cameras.
I have that combo. It's great, I love it. But you know what? It does NOT sell me any images. What sells images for me is not having to wonder whether my shots are in focus or not, because some idiot decided it makes sense that the LCD isn't really showing me the sharpness of my raw. Or because some other idiot decided that it makes sense that to go check focus (even though I really can't) I have to press a magnifying glass a half million times.
The main reason I even own a 35L (aside from gear-whoring peer pressure, largely fueled by comments like yours ) is that my 24-70 2.8L is really more a 24-70 4L or thereabouts.
For what *I* may artistically care about maybe 35 1.4 @ 3200 ISO is ideal... but the parameters my clients use to judge images are such that more often than not they'd actually prefer 35 2.8 @12800 'cause someone else they like ends up being in focus
I can't believe you actually prefer our Canon's ergonomics... I can't get over how freakin' cool it must be to just flip a physical switch to go from one shot focus to servo... rather than having to remember (Am I using the 5D or the 5D2.... and then figuring out which button, followed by which dial to turn)... and darn your cameras don't switch mode on you when you hang them by your side?!?!? I could run a gallery just with my BULB mode photos.
As to Canon coming out with something that overtakes Nikon...
To be perfectly honest, I can totally see Canon coming out with a camera with better high iso, but before I'd *regret* the switch I'd actually have to have some significant beef with whatever Nikon I end up with.
I'm not just jealous of the grass on the other side.
I've been burned a couple of times by my Canon gear and I'm done laughing about it.
I had a portrait session that I had to miraculously save by using every last bit of photoshop skill I have... that AND focusmagic. Piece of shit 5D2 decided to effing consistently misfocus... and of course the damn LCD was showing me whatever garbage JPG Canon thinks is kosher to show me ... and it looked fine. Until I got back to the computer and I nearly literally shit my pants.
As to push-ability. Take a shot at ISO 6400 in low light with a 5D2 underexposed by 2 stops and push it in post. Then do the same with a D700. Then push both, then show me the image with the atrociously obvious banding (in a humorous way, reminiscent of how we used to make fun of Nikon's D200) and I will show you it's a CR2 file.
I know 3 people who rave about their 24-70s and use them wide open for most of the day. How many do you? Every freakin' Nikon shooter I know, has one and loves it.
I've had enough of Canon's bullshit.
I have $20 here that says that when Canon comes out with the 1Ds Mark IV it wil cost MORE than the D3S, will NOT outperform it in terms of high iso, it will shoot slower, and will NOT resolve all the issues I've mentioned.
Oh sure, it will probably have better video ability.
Hey dude, sorry, but like I said I've gotten burned one too many times.
As to this huge price advantage for Canon.... meh... must be a special kind of Math I'm not familiar with... that or someone hasn't checked prices laterly....
Prices at B&H today (rounded to nearest $50 ...oh and the rounding favored Canon):
Canon 5D2: 2500
Canon 16-35L2: 1600
Canon 24-70L: 1300
Canon 70-200 2.8 L IS V2: 2300
Also, with Nikon, you get access to a fantastic array of manual focus AI/AIS glass that will mount and meter with your D3(s). There is a thread on the front page here that you can peruse when you have a couple of hours to kill
And I believe this has been pointed out, but part of the reason that Nikkor glass costs more is the 5 year warranty... And here in Canada, the bodies have 2 year warranty.
edit: I see perhaps the costs are not necessarily higher. Although for long primes, they are.
Hum, i've heard (including I. This thread) that nikon repairs are more expensive than canon ones. If warranty is 5 hrs on lenses really what are the odds? Are we talking about dropped gear?
I moved from 7d to d700 during christmas holliday and so far I am very pleased with the change, especially for AF where finally I have a feeling that all focus modes work fine contrary to before where I was only successful with spot-af. Also all my canon lenses required some level of MA while none was needed with the Nikon gear.
I will get used to this but here are some things I miss or find awkward on the D700:
- Setup banks not as easy to switch and don't consider Exposure, Single/Continuous tracking, single/continuous shutter, metering mode as these are dedicated buttons. Very useful that these are indeed dedicated but less practical for bank switching.
- Things that feel "reverse" for a Canon user. They way you attach lenses, zoom in-out, exposure dial and exposure indicator are in the opposite way than Canon. You can reverse them via settings which I did as nobody will convince me that it is natural to indicate overexposure with a + to the left.
- Using the same dial to set S, Ch, Lv, Timer and Mup. No timer with live view at the same time except for that 1 second setting... This feels like these features were added as an afterthought instead of being part of a original design.
That being said, I just love the d700 for its focus, IQ and general handling and can't wait for this summer for HS soccer this summer. Still wondering with lense to get for this that will not break the bank.
Oh! and one cool thing, old lenses support. I got a used 105mm 2.5 AI-S MF which works perfectly. I don't know if I'll give it that much use as it overlaps my 24-120 f4 but its still a blast to use as it is light, sharp, paper thin DOF.
lisy78 wrote:
As to this huge price advantage for Canon.... meh... must be a special kind of Math I'm not familiar with... that or someone hasn't checked prices laterly....
Prices at B&H today (rounded to nearest $50 ...oh and the rounding favored Canon):
Canon 5D2: 2500
Canon 16-35L2: 1600
Canon 24-70L: 1300
Canon 70-200 2.8 L IS V2: 2300
Canon is 10% more expensive for their outfit... and Nikon is the one offering a little more coverage (14-200 rather than 16-200)
Keep in mind that those prices for the Nikon lenses are for a limited time until end of March. It's $300 off on the Nikkor 24-70 f/2.8, $400 each for Nikkor 14-24 f/2.8 and Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8 VR II. If you were to buy all three lenses, you would have a savings of $1100, which is a pretty heck of a deal.
As for your previous post about Canon's weak points, especially about sharp photos shot at wide open, you are spot on. I made the switch to D700 after shooting 8 years with Canon and I haven't looked back. I was able to AF fine tune my D700 body with the 85 f/1.4D, 24-70 f/2.8G, and 135 f/2 DC AND obtain in focus photos at wide open. Since then, I haven't looked back.
honorerdieu wrote:
Keep in mind that those prices for the Nikon lenses are for a limited time until end of March. It's $300 off on the Nikkor 24-70 f/2.8, $400 each for Nikkor 14-24 f/2.8 and Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8 VR II. If you were to buy all three lenses, you would have a savings of $1100, which is a pretty heck of a deal.
Why do you think I got a fire under my a$$ to switch? Some of those lenses will cost me NEW, with a 5 year warranty (did not know that) less than some peeps are selling them USED in the buy&sell
FWIW the Canon lenses I mentioned almost all had some instant rebate as well... so even in april the price of the two setups will be either identical or maybe still slightly in favor of Nikon... either way no big savings on the canon side of the house.
Do it. It's great. NOT magical like most folks claim, but I am definitely diggin' my new Nikon digs.
Four caveats:
1. I don't care what anyone says, the 5D2 is THE current king of IQ (although I haven't tried a D3x). But the difference is minimal enough to outweigh the disadvantages (like wasting that beauty on out of focus shots).
2. The colors are different. They DON'T suck like I initially thought they did. I actually liked them a lot now, but it definitely required a retool of my processing.
3. The ISO button placement is retarded. Every single other button/switch is beautifully placed.
4. Everything is ugly. The cameras, lenses, menus, flashes. Ugly. Ugly. Ugly. Blahhhhhhh.
honorerdieu wrote:
Just pull the trigger on the switch. You know you want to.
Yeah It's going to take a few days to move some money around. I'm thinking that if I were to charge two D700s a D3S two 24-70 a 14-24 and a 70-200 28 VR2 my credit card company might shit their pants
Oh yeah... and that's not counting flashes, of course
Actually, I think you will be the one sh*tting in your pants once you receive the monthly statement.
FWIW, the Nikon SB-900 is great. I've only used it in Manual Mode so far, as I primarily do off camera flash photography, but I couldn't believe how much more features and functions it had compared to Canon's 580EX II.
mikethevilla wrote:
1. I don't care what anyone says, the 5D2 is THE current king of IQ (although I haven't tried a D3x). But the difference is minimal enough to outweigh the disadvantages (like wasting that beauty on out of focus shots).
How do you define IQ?
Here's how I define IQ:
Camera A has better IQ than Camera B if all three of the following are true:
1. Shot at ISO 100 and printed as a 16x20 Camera A's shot looks better than Camera B's shot to the average bride
2. Shot at ISO 6400 and printed as a 16x20 Camera A's shot looks better than Camera B's shot to the average bride
3. Shot at ISO 25600 and printed as a 16x20 Camera A's shot looks better than Camera B's shot to the average bride
Somehow I woudl find it astonishing if the 5D2 does better than the D3S in this test.
Now if you're talking "ability to resolve more blades of glass on a hyperfocal shot taken on a tripod... at iso 200... then whatever"
Either way... my guess...
NO WAY IN HELL a client would ever notice my Higher IQ images over a comparable D3S image.
99% of CLIENTS (basically all my non-blind clients) will notice the amazing focusing tricks my 5D2 can do when used by me (no doubt better men and women than me could make my camera sing)
For now, I have the Pocket Wizard Plus II to sync the flash firing to my D700. Prior to switching over from Canon, I had a pair FlexTT5's that enabled me to use ETTL mode, but had serious RF problems.
At some point, I'll try out the iTTL mode when I the FlexTT5 for Nikon.
Camera A has better IQ than Camera B if all three of the following are true:
1. Shot at ISO 100 and printed as a 16x20 Camera A's shot looks better than Camera B's shot to the average bride
2. Shot at ISO 6400 and printed as a 16x20 Camera A's shot looks better than Camera B's shot to the average bride
3. Shot at ISO 25600 and printed as a 16x20 Camera A's shot looks better than Camera B's shot to the average bride
Somehow I woudl find it astonishing if the 5D2 does better than the D3S in this test.
Now if you're talking "ability to resolve more blades of glass on a hyperfocal shot taken on a tripod... at iso 200... then whatever"
Either way... my guess...
NO WAY IN HELL a client would ever notice my Higher IQ images over a comparable D3S image.
99% of CLIENTS (basically all my non-blind clients) will notice the amazing focusing tricks my 5D2 can do when used by me (no doubt better men and women than me could make my camera sing)...Show more →
IQ is a wasted if the subject is not in focus in a photo. That was my primary reason for moving over to Nikon because it had superior 51 AF point system compared to Canon's measly offerings for the 5D and 5D MK II. If one wants top of the line AF system from Canon, the company expects you to shell out an extra 2000 to 3000 dollars for the 1-series body.
lisy78 wrote:
As to this huge price advantage for Canon.... meh... must be a special kind of Math I'm not familiar with... that or someone hasn't checked prices laterly....
Those prices must have changed recently, or you must be shopping at the super secret B+H, because here is what I see:
Canon 16-35L II: $1600
Nikon 14-24: $1800
Canon 24-70L: $1300
Nikon 24-70: $1700
Canon 70-200 IS II: $2300
Nikon 70-200 VR II: $2200
These are for the standard USA prices, not grey market/imported
Norman
Edit: I realized you were factoring in the rebates now, which is fair but a bit of a misleading argument because if you already own a Nikon body, the prices would not really be as you reported.
It's kind of funny because I almost have Canon envy due to the availability of a high MP body at a reasonable cost (5dmk2), and from what I hear, far better tilt/shift lenses. But I like shooting landscapes so this changes what gear abilities I look for...
) is that my 24-70 2.8L is really more a 24-70 4L or thereabouts.
