| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/25/2007 10:12:15 PM · #1 |
I have noticed on this site that a number of people who owned Canon (350D, 30D etc) have changed over to the Nikon 200D. Without starting a Nikon/Canon war (again) I am curious as to what prompted the change over. I realise that if you are a Nikon user this seems like a natural change (you have the nikon lenses, like nikon etc) but for someone to change to a totally different system means quite a change around.
If you are one of these people what were your reasons ?
I am curious for your reasons - lets not turn this into a Nikon versus Canon bash.
So what were your reasons?
|
|
|
|
01/25/2007 10:16:35 PM · #2 |
|
|
|
01/25/2007 10:21:15 PM · #3 |
I'm still considering a switch. To me the reason is twofold:
1) I want a bigger brighter viewfinder.
2) I want a great walkaround lens with a good range, like 18-200, and IS/VR. Ultrasonic focusing too.
Canon has models that meet 1, but not #2. I can get a third party lens that almost meets #2, but not with ultrasonic focus.
On the negative side, Nikon doesn't have a lens that can really replace my 10-22. I can get close going Sigma, but then it's not ultrasonic, though it may matter less for the wide angle than it would the walkaround lens.
|
|
|
|
01/25/2007 10:27:49 PM · #4 |
I will be working with Nikon cameras in my new job.... (Community Service Officer - get to take crime scene photos) so it will be interesting to me to make the comparison.... I too am interested in the answers to the question that you posed.....
|
|
|
|
01/25/2007 10:30:41 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by nshapiro:
On the negative side, Nikon doesn't have a lens that can really replace my 10-22. I can get close going Sigma, but then it's not ultrasonic, though it may matter less for the wide angle than it would the walkaround lens. |
I would say your right about atleast the quality of the lens for the Canon 10-22, I have not used it but the general consensus is that is better than the Sigma. But I would think ultrasonic Focus wouldn't be an issue. I have the Sigma and it is very quiet and fast. But if I am doing Lanscape work I just set it to f8-f11 and set the focus somewhere between three feet and just before infinity and I am set. Just my two cents. |
|
|
|
01/25/2007 10:47:37 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by jdannels:
Originally posted by nshapiro:
On the negative side, Nikon doesn't have a lens that can really replace my 10-22. I can get close going Sigma, but then it's not ultrasonic, though it may matter less for the wide angle than it would the walkaround lens. |
I would say your right about atleast the quality of the lens for the Canon 10-22, I have not used it but the general consensus is that is better than the Sigma. But I would think ultrasonic Focus wouldn't be an issue. I have the Sigma and it is very quiet and fast. But if I am doing Lanscape work I just set it to f8-f11 and set the focus somewhere between three feet and just before infinity and I am set. Just my two cents. |
Yes, I often do the same with the Canon.
|
|
|
|
01/25/2007 10:51:16 PM · #7 |
| I hadn't noticed many people made this brand switch. I'd like to hear the reasons why just out of curiosity. I started Nikon and have stayed in case you were wondering... |
|
|
|
01/25/2007 10:55:23 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by nshapiro:
I'm still considering a switch. To me the reason is twofold:
1) I want a bigger brighter viewfinder.
2) I want a great walkaround lens with a good range, like 18-200, and IS/VR. Ultrasonic focusing too.
Canon has models that meet 1, but not #2. I can get a third party lens that almost meets #2, but not with ultrasonic focus.
On the negative side, Nikon doesn't have a lens that can really replace my 10-22. I can get close going Sigma, but then it's not ultrasonic, though it may matter less for the wide angle than it would the walkaround lens. |
Hi Neil - I just bought the Canon EF 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM for under $300. I have taken a few pics with it this week, but still trying to work out what the ultrasonic feature is all about. Have you tried this lens at all? |
|
|
|
01/26/2007 05:25:07 PM · #9 |
|
|
|
01/26/2007 05:30:25 PM · #10 |
| I think people switch brands more often than people think. If you're buying and selling used you're really not losing much of your investment in glass and accessories. Both systems are good, whatever works best for the photographer is best. |
|
|
|
01/26/2007 05:51:39 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by nshapiro:
On the negative side, Nikon doesn't have a lens that can really replace my 10-22. I can get close going Sigma, but then it's not ultrasonic, though it may matter less for the wide angle than it would the walkaround lens. |
I'm a pretty big fan of the Nikkor 12-24 F4. The focusing is virtually silent, and 12mm is plenty wide. a *minor* distinction is the crop factor on the D200 is 1.5x compared to Canon's 1.6x, so 12mm on the Nikkor will seem wider than 12mm on the Canon.
Having said that, I imagine Canon's next generation of viewfinders will be bigger, and an 18-200mm IS lens can't be too far off. Canon tends to offer a longer lineup of lenses than Nikon in general, and I don't doubt they'll want to join that party soon.
Making a system switch can be a costly endeavour, and you've got a strong set of lenses for the canon already. I don't believe the quality of the images will be any different between the two systems.
P
edit for typographical faux pas
Message edited by author 2007-01-26 17:52:56. |
|
|
|
01/26/2007 06:59:44 PM · #12 |
This week's brand of choice is Nikon, so people switch. Next month with PMA there will be new cameras and people will switch again.
If you need weather sealing, for sports or perhpaps PJ work, then you can buy the D200 for a Canon D1 - the canon's are more money and have not been as update/upgraded as the nikon. so there is some logic in that.
Nikon's newest cameras are better at high-ISO noise than they used to be, but Canon is still better.
If you need the best noise control or FF, then you go canon.
|
|
|
|
01/26/2007 07:53:01 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by nshapiro:
On the negative side, Nikon doesn't have a lens that can really replace my 10-22. I can get close going Sigma, but then it's not ultrasonic, though it may matter less for the wide angle than it would the walkaround lens. |
When you do switch let me know.......you will have a buyer for that 10-22mm
|
|
|
|
01/26/2007 08:04:43 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by howzit:
Originally posted by nshapiro:
I'm still considering a switch. To me the reason is twofold:
1) I want a bigger brighter viewfinder.
2) I want a great walkaround lens with a good range, like 18-200, and IS/VR. Ultrasonic focusing too.
Canon has models that meet 1, but not #2. I can get a third party lens that almost meets #2, but not with ultrasonic focus.
On the negative side, Nikon doesn't have a lens that can really replace my 10-22. I can get close going Sigma, but then it's not ultrasonic, though it may matter less for the wide angle than it would the walkaround lens. |
Hi Neil - I just bought the Canon EF 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM for under $300. I have taken a few pics with it this week, but still trying to work out what the ultrasonic feature is all about. Have you tried this lens at all? |
No, I have the 70-300 IS DO. It's compact and has IS. It does have zoom creep though, and it's photos need a bit of local contrast enhancement, but otherwise, I'm happy with it. (It's compact, but pretty heavy.)
The Ultrasonic feature just means quick, quiet, and internal focus. The designation IS means stabilization, and that's important for a long lens.
Actually, if I were to buy a lens and not worry about length or weight, I would have bought the Canon 100-400 IS L. It's a nice lens, but too big for me to carry around. 200 is not enough; neither is 300 really, I've learned. The Sigma Bigma is 50-500. Now that's a range, but no IS, unless you pair it with a Sony Alpha or Pentax K100 or K10D.
|
|
|
|
01/26/2007 08:12:09 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
This week's brand of choice is Nikon, so people switch. Next month with PMA there will be new cameras and people will switch again.
If you need weather sealing, for sports or perhpaps PJ work, then you can buy the D200 for a Canon D1 - the canon's are more money and have not been as update/upgraded as the nikon. so there is some logic in that.
Nikon's newest cameras are better at high-ISO noise than they used to be, but Canon is still better.
If you need the best noise control or FF, then you go canon. |
The rumors are already out about Nikon FF, which Nikon started at a small Malaysian press conference last year in April. I'm looking forward to that new PMA announcement, the mill says Leica-like micro-lenses will be in there to control vignetting, which will one-up the 5d. The Price, of course, will probably NOT one-up the 5d at all IMO. But if it is the D3, then the fps will be better also, but not up to the 8fps of the 1d series. |
|
|
|
01/26/2007 08:39:33 PM · #16 |
| I started with Canon back in 91 while shooting in the Navy, the quality wasn't there but not bad either. However when I went to buy the Nikons just felt right. I've been shooting Nikon now for almost 15yrs. I almost went back to Canon when they came out with the 1D series, I just couldn't justify the cost to switch. I'm not as jealous about the noise suppression as I used to be, I have been very impressed with the D200. Now I shoot a lot of sports, from shooting film until 2 yrs ago I have learned I don't need the 8 fps that the 1D has, 5 is enough. This past weekend I learned the D200 will stand up to just about anything you want to throw at it. How many of out there would take their camera out in a blinding snowstrom for three hours, without any protection fro the camera. The D200 never missed a beat. At almost -40, the shutter just was starting to slow down. Considering I've seen F4's freeze at -20, this ain't too bad. I do however wish that Nikon would come out with that FF sensor. That is one thing that really like about the Canon. They do produce some amazing images. |
|
|
|
01/26/2007 08:39:49 PM · #17 |
There's a lot of potential for a feature or 'armament' race if Nikon and Canon want to play. Now that digital is king and film is dead (essentially and for economic purposes) there is more incentive and less risk to the companies for investing in bodies.
Trends I've seen is Canon has been outselling Nikon 2:1, a lot has to do with the 300D rebel and the market share canon got with that - giving folks a nice upgrade path. Nikon has really picked up share with the D50 and now D40 - but one has to wonder why Canon has not countered - a simple update of the 300D and it could compete at $599 or so with the D40. I suspect Nikon is not making any money on the D40, and that can't continue indefinetely.
The 5D has been a big hit, so Nikon is rethinking their position of 2 or 3 years ago that FF is not needed. Both N and C are bringing out more and more IS/VR lenses, so I doubt we'll see IS/VR bodies from either, but the anti-dust bit will spread.
Canon had a 10FPS film body, and could do that with digital I'm sure. Canon lacks the built-in flash 'master' that Nikon (and everyone else) has. Wireless 'tethered' shooting is out there, but IMO should be a $200 option (at most) to any dSLR. 802.11n (the new as-yet to be adopted as a standard) is fast enough. USB wireless NICs are available for about $50 and every camera has a USB port...no excuse not to have this feature!
If you look at the model lineups of canon and nikon their is no real head to head comparison - the D40 is below the entry Canon 400XTi, the D80 is above the 400, the 30D above the Nikon, the D200 is above the 30D and the 5D above that, etc. Interesting, but it makes it hard to decide what you want, and what fits your needs best. You almost need multiple bodies!
IMO, Nikon has taken the lead lately with more body released and such. Canon has been slow to react - the 400XTi is the only new camera in 18 months (30D being but a minor upgrade to the 20D). If Canon doesn't come out swinging at PMA I think you'll see more folks switching. But not me.
|
|
|
|
01/26/2007 08:52:18 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
Trends I've seen is Canon has been outselling Nikon 2:1, a lot has to do with the 300D rebel and the market share canon got with that - giving folks a nice upgrade path. Nikon has really picked up share with the D50 and now D40 - but one has to wonder why Canon has not countered - a simple update of the 300D and it could compete at $599 or so with the D40. I suspect Nikon is not making any money on the D40, and that can't continue indefinetely. |
I just read that Nikon has overtaken Canon (45% to 37%) in DSLR sales in Japan - whatever that's worth.
As for the not making money on the D40- ever hear of the Gillette theory where they give the razor for free to get the sales of proprietary razor blades? Printer companies have been selling printers for years at very low profit while making gobs, no, obscene amounts of money on the ink cartridges. No reason to think the camera companies wouldn't do the same thing to capture lens and accessory sales. And just like someone else stated, once you are invested in a system, it's very hard to justify switching. |
|
|
|
01/26/2007 09:58:10 PM · #19 |
Well as a guy who has used as many camera brands as there are, I think its totally a matter of what "feels" good to the user. Having shot with Nikon, Canon, and Olympus dSLR and Minolta Film SLRs, I can tell you that impressive results can come with all of these. Each has their quality that makes it stand out from the others in certain situations. You have to choose which one fits your style and your photography needs. Sometimes that means making the switch even after being heavily invested to find your "home team"
MattO
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2026 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 01/02/2026 04:09:00 PM EST.
