10/19 Sorry Nikon users, Canon is still more popular. More lenses, more
bang for bucks, there is no reason to switch to Nikon:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13580_3-9882670-39.html
\_ Actually Nikon has most of the market share in Japan. Canon
is very popular elsewhere. It's a neck to neck race reall, but
Nikon seems to be doing quite well in the ultra-low-end DSLR:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=21818320
\_ Agreed. There is no reason for the typical Canon users to switch
to Nikon. Whatever advantage Nikon has over Canon nowadays, if
any, is not worth the re-investment. One rason I can think of
any, is not worth the re-investment. The only reason I can think of
that a Canon user would want to switch is that he/she needs to use
a very specific obscure lens that Canon doesn't make (e.g. 6mm
f/2.8 or 1200-1700mm f/5.6-8). Another one might be that for some
obscure reason you really need 1/4000sec shutter speed or 1/250sec
X-sync speed even when your camera battery is dead. Otherwise
there is no reason.
--- current owner of FM2n, N70, D80
\_ Unlike the old days when you had a Nikkor for 20-30 years,
today technology improves at an astounding rate (optics
combined with superior technology like IS/VR). The good news
is that with eBay these days, it's very easy to recoup or
reduce loss by selling Nikon and going to a superior choice
like Canon. By the way, do you actually use your film camera
these days? How often? When was the last time?
\- i am not the OP, but i occasionally shoot Velvia, E100,
and TMAX. a whole generation of digital-only photographers
has missed how good a nice slide looks projected as a
several foot wide image. again, not relevant if you just
take pictures at pt reyes or yosemite in the middle of the
day or in the backyard or the beach etc. i do not know
much about digital post-processing and i dont have a super-
high end digital SLR but i believe, and my associates agree,
portrait prints from TMAX for example look better than the
digital stuff shot at ~8mp. on the other hand, there are
places where i have taken ~300 digital pictures and kept
maybe 6 [like when shooting from a boat]. under those
circumstances in the film era, i wouldnt have bothered with
a camera at all, since the +$100 of film and dev costs
would not have been worth the 3 decent pictures. there
are a number of other aspects in which the upper echelons
of the film camera bodies [$500-$1000] are superior to the
sub-$1 digital bodies [in my case say my N90 vs D70 ...
over all build quality and controls of N90 are vastly
better than D70].
however, it is true ebay has had a real effect on the mkt
and consumer options, in my opnion. BTW, is it possible to
reasonably do long exposures ... say 60-90sec on the ~$1k
digitals today?
\_ I last used my film camera 11 months ago when I was the
photog for a wedding. The couple specified that they want
film, so I shot with Kodal Ultra 100UC. (BTW normally one
would use 160NC for wedding, but from my experience Chinese
people (including all my relatives) think the color from
160NC and even 160VC is too dull for wedding day pictures, so
I migrated to 100UC.) --- current owner of FM2n, N70, D80
\_ The D80 has a "bulb" shutter speed. Whether or not the
CCD actually produces reasonable result for a 60-90sec
exposure, I haven't tried and I don't know.
--- current owner of FM2n, N70, D80
\- yes, i know about bulb, i was wondering about the CCD.
\_ I last used my FM2n eleven months ago when I was the photog
for a wedding. The couple specified that they wanted film, so
I shot with Kodal Ultra 100UC. (BTW normally one would use
160NC for wedding, but from my experience Chinese people
(including all my relatives) think the color from 160NC and
even 160VC is too dull for wedding day pictures, so I migrated
to 100UC.) --- current owner of FM2n, N70, D80
\_ Interesting. These days, people want computer files so
they can reproduce easier, and it archives forever,
and it's a lot easier to share. Who are these people
who prefer film? Are they old fashioned?
\_ shooting film, then scan the film into computer still
yield better result than most of the camera on the
market (i don't have a high-end digital camra, so
i wouldn't know). Film also has color bias which
people who get used to it liked (I love NPH, it has
a GREEN bias). For Black-n-white, film beats digital
hands down. Film simply captures a lot more details.
In history of photography, people consistantly choose
convenience over quality. This is one of the reason
why those glass-plated b&w photos of civil war still
look very good today. kngharv
\_ None of the civil war pix are action shots. Also,
I bet you don't see all the ones that looked like
crap because only the good ones survived.
\_ there is no reason to switch from Nikon to Canon, nor vice versa,
period. Unless you are doing something REALLY specific, your
photograph is probably not going to be limited by the BRAND of
your equipment. kngharv
\_ I can tell you why. Canon lenses cost a lot less and you
have waaay more selections. A 28-70mm f/2.8 Nikon costs
$1600 new and $1500 used whereas the exact same one costs
only $1100 (NEW) on Canon. That's enough money to buy
a decent backup 1.6 body. When you build your equipment,
high quality lenses will dominate the body and in the long
term it's MUCH more economical to go with Canon. Personally
I don't see why people choose Nikon these days besides legacy
and loyalty. Given how uncompetitive Nikon has been I think
it'll follow the same fate as Cyrix or AMD... they just can't
compete feature for feature and bang for bucks with Intel, and
will die out slowly. Go with the loser and you'll get stuck
with expensive lenses that no one wants. Go with the winner
and you'll have decades of use on your equipments.
\_ I prefer Nikon because the availibity of used lenses.
For example. I can pick up a manual focus 500mm mirror,
or some Russian-made fisheye for <$300. I have about 8-9
lenses, only two of them cost more than $300.
(20-35mm f/2.8, Tamron 90mm f/2.8 macro). For me, be able
to pick up a 20 year old lenses as a cheaper alternative
is an option which I find very NICE to have.
Further, I used only ONE lenses for my first 10 years of
photography: 50mm f/1.4. And, despite the crop factor,
I discover I start to use my 50mm a lot more (~25% of
the time). Most people will not own more than 3 lenses,
and most people certainly will not carry all three lenses
they own all the time. So, yes, I agree with you that
Canon is more successful commercially, but I don't think
that matters all that much. All brand, Nikon, Canon, Pentax,
Sony/Minota, even Sigma, make great equipments and chances
are, it is you that limits what you can do with it. kngharv
\_ Why did you use only one lens? |
http://csua.com/feed/