|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/01/2006 09:03:24 PM · #51 |
"Of course a big white blob would put off wildlife much more so than a black one"
Course u kood always stick some cammo tape on it and some twigs an leaves! |
|
|
|
03/01/2006 09:12:44 PM · #52 |
Only one reason I know is canon has wider angle tilt/shift lenses. Everything else is the same.
Nick
|
|
|
|
03/01/2006 09:18:00 PM · #53 |
I started my DSLR foray with the Canon 300D, but I had a Nikon F80 film camera. It just 'felt' so much better in my hand. I eventually went to the D70 and a few weeks ago to the D200. I have no regreat and I think the D200 is an outstanding camera.
I do look across the table at some of those Canon L lenses, they do give me 'lens envy' :-) There is something about the lenses that makes me a little jealous. But I am now going to stick with Nikon, no matter what Canon do. The fact is...Canon goes first, Nikon then trums. Canon goes again, Nikon trumps again. Better for Canon to go first, that way, a few months later we have the better camera.
There are now some great Nikon lenses that go head to head with the Canons.
|
|
|
|
03/01/2006 10:41:07 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by riot:
Of course a big white blob would put off wildlife much more so than a black one, what with so many predators being bright white. And it's not at all likely that the ridiculous noise of the in-camera-body autofocus motors that aren't suited to long lenses would put off wildlife, as opposed to the silent ultrasonic motors in the big whites. Of course it wouldn't be that with the shoddy nikon optics, the distortions are so bad that thermal expansion wouldn't make any difference, so the heat reflectance of a white coating would be clearly surplus to requirements. And of course the licenced two-generation-old ex-canon VR is more than enough to make up for a lack of a decent aperture, which a nikon lens couldn't support because of the excessive chromatic aberration that they refuse to fix with fluorite elements... because they're more brittle than glass, isn't that the party line? Still, black and not white lenses is definitely a good reason to indoctrinate this poor OP into making a fatal trapping mistake in terms of what dying lens system he subscribes to.
|
Are you intentionally being obtuse, trolling or just ignorant?
You do realize that some of the worlds finest photgraphers use Nikon for it's technical abilities..just like Canon. It's not just unsuspecting n00bs buying into Nikon.
I work for Photoworks Creative Group, a professional photoservice company providing print and graphic support to some of the country's best photographers.
We are a Nikon studio for the most part and one of the photographers that I met that we serve is John Shaw, one of the worlds best nature photographers. He helped me decide to go Nikon and I spent 2 years worth of savings on a new Nikon system.
Visit John's website at John Shaw Photography
Take a look at his work and I am sure you can admit he isn't being held back by his poor Nikon equipment :-/
Another awesome Nikon shooter is Joe McNally Joe McNally Photography
BTW....I think Canon is great too.....
And to address comments about Nikon sticking to tried and true designs. Porsche and BMW are two companies that have done a nice job of blending past technologies with current trends...I applaud Nikon for doing the same.
Message edited by author 2006-03-01 23:02:23. |
|
|
|
03/05/2006 10:27:54 PM · #55 |
FWIW, my 1972 VW Beetle was the best car I ever owned (out of only 9 cars I must say). It needed a little hands on TLC now and then, but generally cost me far less in maintenance in 3 years than I spent in 1 year on most of my other cars. It's still being driven around Victoria by it's new owners too.
Of course, it's a far cry from today's VW Golf TDI, but that also costs 40 times more than I paid for my bug.
Now if I could buy a car for about the same money that had the form factor and excellence of the TDI golf, I'd be a lot happier.
And here is where lenses become a different matter altogether.
Where I live, there is an area with over 100 new camera stores.
About 10 of these have a series of 2nd hand lenses.
60-80% of these are Nikon or for Nikon.
Are there more lenses available for Nikon? Yes.
The problem is that I don't think anyone wants to use them. Why? Because they cost a fortune! Maybe it's different in the Americas, but here in Asia, you can get an old MF Nikkor lens for the same price as a brand new one with AF and special optics for digital sensors. Sometimes less money. And the newer lens will perform better and will usually have better optics edge to edge.
On the other hand, Canon lenses seem harder to find. Older lenses are probably not to be found because they aren't compatible so they aren't sold. What is sold is a collection of newer second hand lenses.
Out of all those stores, there is just 1 store which specializes in second hand gear outside of lenses. I have seen all kinds of great lenses go through that store, from 400mm f/4.0 to the 100-400mm IS to the 70-200 f/2.8L IS to the 100mm prime.......
All newer lenses that are highly valuable.
They don't usually get a chance to collect dust because of this.
Meanwhile, the Nikkor's sit there building up layer upon layer. It's a good thing that they are dust-resistant.
But of course, Nikon does make some excellent cameras. I also considered buying a D70 that I could have picked up second hand for around 450 dollars US body only, but the lenses brought me back to Canon.
There may be more lenses in the Nikon camp, but I find that the 2nd hand market is much healthier (here) in the Canon set.
Additionally, when I compiled my wish-list of 4-5 lenses (with and without the kit lens), I found that the overall cost to go Nikon was around 500 dollars US MORE than the Canon lens set equivalent.
Made all the difference to me. I've already knocked 600 dollars off that by going second hand too. Might have to put that money into buying a new 30D instead of a second hand 20D. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 03/13/2025 11:38:41 AM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/13/2025 11:38:41 AM EDT.
|
