nikon vs canon

[DELINDA]

Doe's nikon make a better camera then canon ? Consider all things , body , lens , feature's . Or are they equal .

[TuffLuffJimmy]

All a matter of preference.

[iSavant]

Ha, your question doesn't allow for the possibility that canon is the better, LOL

Anyhoo, Nikon for me :D

It's a very personal preference topic

[compuwar]

Doe's nikon make a better camera then canon ? Consider all things , body , lens , feature's . Or are they equal .

Both manufacturers make a range of cameras, all of them have strengths and weaknesses. Just like with vehicles, there is no "best," only "well-suited for what I do" or "not well suited for what I do." Moreover, the suitability is temporal- ~two years ago, Canon had the best low-light imaging cameras of the two, now it's Nikon- but "better" doesn't necessarily mean much- I can get great images from pretty-much any current and past generation DSLR on the market- how much "better" do you need, and how much "better" can you afford?

Right now, the D3x is the king of the hill, but few pros, and few amateurs want to fork out the sort of money that takes- even if the next step up is considerably more money and compromises in different ways- if you believe DXO mark http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/DxOMark-Sensor (http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/DxOMark-Sensor) then Nikon holds 3 of the top 5 with Phase One holding the other two and Canon coming in sixth and seventh- but that's only applicable to the P65, P40, D3x, D3, D700, 1DsIII and 5DII- it doesn't "trickle down" except in specific ways to lower-end products. So, if you're not spending a few thousand dollars on a camera body, then a few more thousand dollars on lenses to go with it, you're probably looking at the wrong thing.

Together, the two companies hold about 80% of the global DSLR market, with Canon probably still slightly ahead, but losing overall to Nikon in terms of market share gains for the last 3-4 years running. Sony is the next-biggest player with around 8% of the market, everyone else has less than 5% each. This landscape is unlikely to change much in the next 3-4 years even if one or two of the other players go out of business or get sold. The only real player with potential to shake the market in a major way that soon is Samsung- but they seem to be content to try to out-maneuver Olympus in the smaller camera market for the short term and even with their huge retail presence, it'd take a lot of work for them to do anything significant in that timeframe.

Canon is a much larger company than Nikon, and all of the players have multiple lines of business, but with the global economic slump, Nikon has basically moved from optics company to camera company since the majority of their revenues are from digital cameras these days. Nikon's business model recently has focused on low-priced entry-level bodies and multiple lens sales- which has resulted in them closing with Canon for the first time in DSLR sales in their home market- a big metric for Japanese companies.

Neither company makes bad products, and I don't know a photographer who couldn't get pretty equivalent results using relatively equivalent models from either company.

Instead of looking for a "best," you should decide which factors are important to you, what your budget is, and who best fits your budget for those factors that are important. You can modify that with ergonomics between different cameras in each company's line, and future needs- but anyone should be able to easily make the case for either manufacturer unless they have a specific axe to grind.

We'll now return you to your regularly scheduled posting where everyone who shoots something other than Canon or Nikon will chime in about how much value you miss by not going with one of them...

Paul

[luminosity]

I like and shoot Nikon, but I sometimes look longingly at various Canon glass and wish I could use a given lens (hello, 135L).

[El Cabong]

MINOLTA. Obviously.

[T-Stex]

I went with a Nikon D90, which I think is the best value in prosumer/amateur level DSLRs between the two. However, I was very tempted by the Pentax K-7. Between Nikon and Canon, it's really a matter of preference. I picked the Nikon because it felt better in my hands. Other than that, an equivalent Canon would've worked just as well.

[dork]

I assume that you're asking about DSLRs, and not just point and shoot cameras.

I agree with most of what everyone else has said - both Canon and Nikon make excellent cameras, and it is largely a function of personal preference. I myself use a Pentax K20D. I lust for a Hasselblad. My wife uses a Nikon.

The feature sets of most mid-to-high-end DSLRs are very similar, as is general build quality. And Pentax, Nikon, Canon, Sigma (etc.) all make excellent optics (and they all make some crappy optics too - you'll get what you pay for).

If you are buying a DSLR for the first time my recommendation would be to choose between models and brands based on the following two criteria: (1) which has a users manual that is easy for you to understand and follow [thus making the camera itself and its myriad features easier for you to understand and use]; and (2) which feels best in your hand.

[MisterMe]

Doe's nikon make a better camera then canon ? Consider all things , body , lens , feature's . Or are they equal .compuwar makes a compelling point. Your question is akin to asking what is the best flavor of ice cream.

Given a choice between the two, I would take the Nikon. In fact, I own two prosumer DSLRs—an Olympus E20N and a Nikon D40. Both are great cameras. However, the photos taken with the Nikon are beautiful beyond description. I love Canon. I would love to buy a Canon DSLR. However, Canon does not support USB Automount, a feature that is available on many digital keychain cameras. For me, this is a deal breaker. However, Canon supports iPhoto. For most Mac users, support for Image Capture, iPhoto, and/or Aperture are more than adequate. Different strokes for different folks.

[Westside guy]

These threads always start out so nicely, with everyone being so overly even-handed and all.

That's how they start anyway. :D

Really, I think the only case a person can make against any of the camera companies is perhaps a business one, if you're worried about (just for the sake of argument) a company like Pentax going out of business. And, as has already been said, occasionally one company or the other offers a particular set of lenses that's better adapted to how you shoot - but it's almost impossible to make that call when you're starting out anyway.

I've loved my Nikon dSLRs. I prefer their handling to that of the Canon dSLRs I've shot with. But, similarly to luminosity, I am occasionally envious of some of the lenses Canon offers that Nikon doesn't - f/4 zooms in particular, which would go very well with my D700. :D Yet I would feel constrained having, say, the 5D's autofocus system instead of my D700's.

No matter which way you choose, you will almost certainly be happy. And, no matter which way you choose, there will always be some little thing or another that you'll see a different company offer but your chosen brand doesn't for whatever reason. There's no perfect camera - but almost all of them are very, very good.

[luminosity]

Take a good look at the lens selection you'll have, because that's what you're really buying into. The cameras come and go a lot more often than the lenses do.

Just as an example, the Nikon 85/1.4 turns 15 next year. It debuted with the F5, which was Nikon's top film camera at the time. I think you know how things have gone in the years since then.

[gkarris]

MINOLTA. Obviously.

Now known as Sony...

Olympus all the way - don't let anyone tell you anything else...

LOL...

[gnd]

We'll now return you to your regularly scheduled posting where everyone who shoots something other than Canon or Nikon will chime in about how much value you miss by not going with one of them...

Pentax currently really is the best bang for the buck. :p

[wheelhot]

what?? comparing Canon VS Nikon. Everyone knows that Leica is the best camera out there, especially the S2.

LOL :p

[El Cabong]

I rescind my previous suggestion of Minolta.

what?? comparing Canon VS Nikon. Everyone knows that Leica is the best camera out there, especially the S2.

LOL :p

Leica? Pfft. I think we all can agree that Hasselblad and Holga share the space at the top of the camera heap, though it's hard to say which of the two is better, quality-wise.

[H2Ockey]

I like pie. Although sometimes i'm jelous of really good butter cream frosting on a big hunk of chocolate cake, warm pie feels better in my mouth. I started out with cake and it has a place for me but I still prefer pie. Ice cream works well with both but i've always found it more compatible with certain pies, and not just that but whipped cream is just works better with pie when ice cream is not feasible.
I guess in the end it comes down to personal preferance to most and it is hard to say which is better but for me i'll always be a pie lover first.

[Maxxamillian]

Both manufacturers make a range of cameras, all of them have strengths and weaknesses. Just like with vehicles, there is no "best," only "well-suited for what I do" or "not well suited for what I do." Moreover, the suitability is temporal- ~two years ago, Canon had the best low-light imaging cameras of the two, now it's Nikon- but "better" doesn't necessarily mean much- I can get great images from pretty-much any current and past generation DSLR on the market- how much "better" do you need, and how much "better" can you afford?

Right now, the D3x is the king of the hill, but few pros, and few amateurs want to fork out the sort of money that takes- even if the next step up is considerably more money and compromises in different ways- if you believe DXO mark http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/DxOMark-Sensor (http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/DxOMark-Sensor) then Nikon holds 3 of the top 5 with Phase One holding the other two and Canon coming in sixth and seventh- but that's only applicable to the P65, P40, D3x, D3, D700, 1DsIII and 5DII- it doesn't "trickle down" except in specific ways to lower-end products. So, if you're not spending a few thousand dollars on a camera body, then a few more thousand dollars on lenses to go with it, you're probably looking at the wrong thing.

Together, the two companies hold about 80% of the global DSLR market, with Canon probably still slightly ahead, but losing overall to Nikon in terms of market share gains for the last 3-4 years running. Sony is the next-biggest player with around 8% of the market, everyone else has less than 5% each. This landscape is unlikely to change much in the next 3-4 years even if one or two of the other players go out of business or get sold. The only real player with potential to shake the market in a major way that soon is Samsung- but they seem to be content to try to out-maneuver Olympus in the smaller camera market for the short term and even with their huge retail presence, it'd take a lot of work for them to do anything significant in that timeframe.

Canon is a much larger company than Nikon, and all of the players have multiple lines of business, but with the global economic slump, Nikon has basically moved from optics company to camera company since the majority of their revenues are from digital cameras these days. Nikon's business model recently has focused on low-priced entry-level bodies and multiple lens sales- which has resulted in them closing with Canon for the first time in DSLR sales in their home market- a big metric for Japanese companies.

Neither company makes bad products, and I don't know a photographer who couldn't get pretty equivalent results using relatively equivalent models from either company.

Instead of looking for a "best," you should decide which factors are important to you, what your budget is, and who best fits your budget for those factors that are important. You can modify that with ergonomics between different cameras in each company's line, and future needs- but anyone should be able to easily make the case for either manufacturer unless they have a specific axe to grind.

We'll now return you to your regularly scheduled posting where everyone who shoots something other than Canon or Nikon will chime in about how much value you miss by not going with one of them...

Paul

D3x is king of which hill? Landscape? Fashion? Surely not for anything requiring speed...

[SLC Flyfishing]

D3x is king of which hill? Landscape? Fashion? Surely not for anything requiring speed...

The 3x has plenty of speed, in every category. It's got less burst speed and less high ISO ability than the D3 or D3s but it's no slouch either. The AF performance is the same.

The D3x is king of the hill for all except sports (in the 35mm DSLR format).

SLC

[jaysen]

Canon, FTW !

or what's the other trendy internet slang; Nikon, FAIL!

:) In all serious-ness, I've been happy with my Canon gear but to be fair, I've never used Nikon :) to each their own.

[Maxxamillian]

The 3x has plenty of speed, in every category. It's got less burst speed and less high ISO ability than the D3 or D3s but it's no slouch either. The AF performance is the same.

The D3x is king of the hill for all except sports (in the 35mm DSLR format).

SLC

That pretty much answers my question. The image quality from a D3x is simply stunning (and BIG)...

[ggibson913]

Both Canon and Nikon produce superb photos. The best advice I got and what I recommend is to go to the store and feel which one feels better in your hands.

[msmarks]

a year ago i decided to buy a dSLR - i tested a nikon D90 and a Canon 40D.. I preferred the nikon - just personal pref..

with no previous lens baggage I was free to make a choice, but once you buy in to one family of lenses and accessories of course its then easier to stick with that make...


but for a first but its all preference:)


_[__]_
§(-_-)§

[OceanView]

I've always liked Canon for their quality and ease of use.
But they also seemed a bit more affordable compared to Nikon when you take all things into account like lenses and such.

[Jaro65]

I like pie. Although sometimes i'm jelous of really good butter cream frosting on a big hunk of chocolate cake, warm pie feels better in my mouth. I started out with cake and it has a place for me but I still prefer pie. Ice cream works well with both but i've always found it more compatible with certain pies, and not just that but whipped cream is just works better with pie when ice cream is not feasible.
I guess in the end it comes down to personal preferance to most and it is hard to say which is better but for me i'll always be a pie lover first.

Loved your response. :)

[davidinva]

Another vote for pie.

[compuwar]

D3x is king of which hill? Landscape? Fashion? Surely not for anything requiring speed...

If you're a fan of spray-and-pray, then no- however it's still much faster than manual wind film cameras, and it outperforms my first motor drive film camera as well- as a matter of fact, its almost twice as fast as my LAST 35mm film camera (8008s- 3.3FPS) was. You'd think nobody got good images before anything got to ~8FPS the way people harp on about speed.

But as I said there's either "Well-suited for what I do" or "Not well-suited for what I do." I went with the D3x because it's well-suited for what I do. If I'd have wanted to spray and pray in the dark, I'd have gotten a D3.

The fact that if you twist the numbers right it outperforms at least one MF back pretty-much puts it at the top of the hill though. Time will tell what happens when Canon finally gets out a 1DsIV or 2Ds though- but I'm not worried about that- my IQ doesn't seem to diminish when a new body comes along- I'm still shooting with my D2x at times when I need a different lens than the D3x is attached to.

Paul

[AlaskaMoose]

a year ago i decided to buy a dSLR - i tested a nikon D90 and a Canon 40D.. I preferred the nikon - just personal pref..

with no previous lens baggage I was free to make a choice, but once you buy in to one family of lenses and accessories of course its then easier to stick with that make...


but for a first but its all preference:)


_[__]_
§(-_-)§

A couple of years ago I decided to buy a a DSLR camera. I tested the Nikon D90 and the Canon 40D, and chose the Canon 40D. It's just personal preference. But I did have a few Canon lenses, too. I just have gotten used to the Canon button layout.

[carlgo]

It also depends on which cameras in each company's line you are talking about. They each make a zillion different cameras with completely different specs, designs, materials, lenses, etc. So, one might have a better entry level P&S, the other a better entry level DSLR and so on.

My last three cameras have been Nikons. All have been totally reliable and operate as expected. This has been my incentive to stay with this brand. Now, if Canon came out with some compelling technology, something clearly superior, then it would be silly not to switch on my next purchase. If I won the lotto, I would get a Leica or something even more astonishingly expensive and sniff arrogantly at those lesser brands...

[AlaskaMoose]

It also depends on which cameras in each company's line you are talking about. They each make a zillion different cameras with completely different specs, designs, materials, lenses, etc. So, one might have a better entry level P&S, the other a better entry level DSLR and so on.

My last three cameras have been Nikons. All have been totally reliable and operate as expected. This has been my incentive to stay with this brand. Now, if Canon came out with some compelling technology, something clearly superior, then it would be silly not to switch on my next purchase. If I won the lotto, I would get a Leica or something even more astonishingly expensive and sniff arrogantly at those lesser brands...

Yes, they both offer equally nice products depending on customer need. I have had nothing but reliability form the last two Canon cameras I have purchased. The first was a Rebel XT which I still use, and then a Canon 40D. So, after a few Canon lenses, I plan to stay with Canon.

I still have a Nikon F3 HP SLR film camera with a motor drive and a few lenses, and it was a real nice camera back in its days.

[Westside guy]

This was a much simpler choice six years ago (or so). The Nikon D70 had been released, and it was SUCH a big jump over the original Digital Rebel (which we had at work) the choice was a no-brainer. At the lower end there just wasn't much else there. I had been shooting a Pentax K1000 (film), and Pentax was just getting into the digital game at that time with the *ist IIRC - but that just fell short.

Nowadays there are just so many valid options. I have such a bad habit of over-analyzing that, if I were jumping into the market now, I'd probably be paralyzed with indecision. :D

[firestarter]

Both Nikon and Canon leapfrog each other as time passes, and in each price band in the market one or other manufacturer will be top.

I'm going to take a leap here and assume you're a newbie, looking for a low end DSLR body (I'm guessing you wouldn't be asking this question if you had more experience with DSLRs).

For me, Nikon's lack of autofocus motor in its new low end DSLR bodies makes it a poorer choice for a first DSLR. While low end Nikons and Canons coupled with their kit lenses are pretty equivalent, the lack of focus motor on the Nikon side means you have a really reduced choice of lenses to upgrade to. Most important in my book is the 'nifty 50 f1.8' - which won't autofocus on the low end Nikon bodies.

I really have no axe to grind here. Having switched systems a few times I think brand loyalty is ridiculous!

[Maxxamillian]

If you're a fan of spray-and-pray, then no- however it's still much faster than manual wind film cameras, and it outperforms my first motor drive film camera as well- as a matter of fact, its almost twice as fast as my LAST 35mm film camera (8008s- 3.3FPS) was. You'd think nobody got good images before anything got to ~8FPS the way people harp on about speed.

But as I said there's either "Well-suited for what I do" or "Not well-suited for what I do." I went with the D3x because it's well-suited for what I do. If I'd have wanted to spray and pray in the dark, I'd have gotten a D3.

The fact that if you twist the numbers right it outperforms at least one MF back pretty-much puts it at the top of the hill though. Time will tell what happens when Canon finally gets out a 1DsIV or 2Ds though- but I'm not worried about that- my IQ doesn't seem to diminish when a new body comes along- I'm still shooting with my D2x at times when I need a different lens than the D3x is attached to.

Paul

This makes sense. Being a D3 shooter (a spray-n-prayer?? ;) ) I've always looked at the D3x as more a niche product. However, after more research (thanks to this thread) I am officially tempted.

Hmmmm….multiple Elinchrom Rangers or D3x...

[Nostromo]

You can't really make a mistake buying either a Canon or a Nikon.

Just be sure to handle all the cameras before you get them.

Look at the viewfinders. If you want a good one, you need to get one with a pentaprism.

Biggest mistake people make when buying a camera is sink all the money in the body and put a crappy lens in front.

[El Cabong]

You can't really make a mistake buying either a Canon or a Nikon.

I know a couple of people who bought D40s and regretted it, namely for not being able to autofocus an AF-D nifty fifty on them because of Nikon's insidious cost-cutting/upgrade-forcing measure of removing the in-camera autofocus motor. It's easy to say that the D40/60/3000/5000 are just starter cameras that will be eventually discarded, or that learning manual focus (with lenses that are specifically designed to autofocus...) is a good thing; in the end, though, it's simply a missing feature that can stifle the interest of a burgeoning photographer. So, that's one way buying a Nikon could be seen as a mistake.

I shoot Nikon, btw. Also, I've never owned a D40/60/3000/5000.

[luminosity]

I have and I agree with all that. I really dislike the lack of in-body autofocus and I do think it limits developing photographers It's great for the masses that won't go past the kit lens, but it's a problem for as long as Nikon still has a large amount of AF-D lenses as their top lens at a given focal length.

[oogieboogiex]

I am getting into digital... for me, when I started to do any photography i went whole hog in 1983 or so and got a new Nikon F3, a Nikkor 35-105, and a speedlight. I picked up an e-series lens later used.

Admittedly i got out of film some time ago, but was recently researching decent used dslrs

Good friend at work uses Canon, loves them. I plan on sticking with Nikon because I am familiar and the mount remains the same, giving me at least a small start on lenses. But in talking to him, we've discovered there is not much to choose between them... both very good, and a lot comes down to preference, from what i can see.

For the time being though, I grabbed a Fuji Finepix 1500fd... not bad for a middle ground between p+s and dslr...

[compuwar]

I have and I agree with all that. I really dislike the lack of in-body autofocus and I do think it limits developing photographers It's great for the masses that won't go past the kit lens, but it's a problem for as long as Nikon still has a large amount of AF-D lenses as their top lens at a given focal length.

Nikon does not have a "large amount" of AF-D lenses as their top lenses in a given focal length. So, now we've gotten that out of the way, it's time to complain that their top lenses in a give focal length aren't as cheap as lenses manufactured for decades...

The fact is that most photographers only have one lens, and Nikon's been slowly creeping that number upwards over the last few years, but the average is still less than two. It's more of a perceived issue than a real issue for most photographers- and frankly most people who it would apply to will likely be on their second body by the time it limits them anyway- and at this point in time, that's likely to have AF-D compatibility.

Lest anyone think that AF is a "killer" thing, Nikon will still sell you at least eight manual-focus-only lenses, and Zeiss's newish ZF series for Nikon are all MF only as well.

Most of the modern zooms beat the pants off the older prime designs and the once venerable, but hugely expensive 14mm sucks on digital. Heck, even the old 20-35mm beats or nearly beats the 24mm prime depending on who you talk to. Look at the MTF charts for the 24mm AF-D lens, then look at the charts for the 12-24 at 24mm, then finally look at the 14-24 at 24mm- now look at the 14mm prime and the 14-24 at 14mm. The 14-24mm is good enough to take out all three AF-D primes in its range.

Here's a list of Nikon's "best" lenses- not a one of them isn't AF-S.

12-24mm
14-24mm
17-35mm
50mm
60mm
24-70mm
85mm
105mm
70-200mm
200mm
200-400mm
300mm f/4
300mm f/2.8
400mm
500mm
600mm

While I think it's unfortunate for folks on a budget who already own Nikkor AF-D lenses, the fact is that Nikon's consumer lenses mostly don't suck and the used market's prices over the last year have gotten big enough that it's not the bargain it once was. Optics have come far enough that today, even Sigma can beat the performance of many AF-D primes with zoom lenses, especially in the DX portion of the frame that all the non-screwdriver bodies have.

The new "handhold-able" 300mm f/2.88 VR is interesting. The only real "holes" in Nikon's lens lineup is an f/4 70-200 and an update to the 80-400VR. At this point, there have to be around fifty lenses that AF on all Nikon bodies between Nikon, Sigma and Tamron

[El Cabong]

Nikon does not have a "large amount" of AF-D lenses as their top lenses in a given focal length. So, now we've gotten that out of the way, it's time to complain that their top lenses in a give focal length aren't as cheap as lenses manufactured for decades...
[...]
Here's a list of Nikon's "best" lenses- not a one of them isn't AF-S.


Not to nitpick, but, you listed "85mm" as one of Nikon's "best" lenses, which I'm assuming is the 85mm f/3.5 DX Macro (aka Micro). However, it isn't a replacement for the 85mm f/1.4D or f/1.8D, though there's a rumored prime refresh coming next year. Similarly, the 105mm f/2.8 AF-S Macro isn't a replacement for the 105mm DC f/2D, nor is there a real AF-S equivalent for focal lengths you didn't list, such as the 135mm DC f/2D, or either of Nikon's fisheyes. All of these remain listed on Nikon's website (at least their US site - couldn't be bothered to check others).

Of course, these aren't necessarily lenses that the majority of new camera owners, or really, photographers in general, would be interested in, but they are nevertheless inaccessible - at least, to an extent - to the entry-level Nikon user. In addition, those with less money to spend can get good deals on useful older lenses, particularly the 50mm f/1.8D or the 35-70mm f/2.8D, but also some of the (admittedly surpassed by the newer zooms) f/2.8 primes. There are also a few third-party lenses that either lack versions with built-in autofocus or have cheaper body-driven versions.

In any case, I just think that when people choose to buy a budget camera, they should be able to use budget lenses (to their full functionality, FX/DX quibbles aside) on them, instead of having to (ironically) upgrade in order to do so.

[firestarter]

Nikon does not have a "large amount" of AF-D lenses as their top lenses in a given focal length. So, now we've gotten that out of the way, it's time to complain that their top lenses in a give focal length aren't as cheap as lenses manufactured for decades...


Compuwar - after your promising first post in this thread calmly stating how any camera is adequate, you now seem to have switched back into full Nikon fanboy mode.

This post of yours is completely misdirected. You're arguing that Nikon's top lenses aren't AF-D, they're AF-S. Well guess what, you're completely correct! Nikon's new expensive great glass is AF-S, but these aren't the lenses that a low end SLR owner will buy as their second lens after the kit one!

The advantage of the Canon, Minolta/Sony and Pentax systems is that the newbie owner has their pick of pretty good autofocus prime and zoom lenses for not much money. How about a 20mm 2.8 / 50mm 1.8 / 85mm 1.8 kit? Can on a Canon, can't on the Nikon (at least not with autofocus).

And while we're at it, a newbie with a low end body isn't typically going to be in the market for manual focus.
And the fact that Nikon's AF-D wide angle primes suck so badly that 'the 14-24mm is good enough to take out all three AF-D primes' isn't something to be proud of.

[luminosity]

While I very much respect your thoughts, compuwar, you cannot realistically expect to hold up the 14-24 as a replacement for top-notch WA primes, mainly because of the cost issue (not quality, as the 14-24 gives up nothing to anything).

You also cannot possibly be serious about the 85/3.5 being the top lens at that focal length. The 85/1.4 must still be considered as such, and the new macro lens cannot be used normally on the D3/x/s/700 or any film camera. "Except for this, this and that, it's the top lens," basically. There's also the 85/1.8, which I think would all but supplant the 85/1.4 if it was updated as an AF-S lens and the 1.4 wasn't. The same goes for the 50/1.8 to some extent, though the 50/1.4 has already been updated.

[DELINDA]

I had no idea my question would provoke such input . Thank you everyone . The reason I asked which was better , is , a friend has N and I have C . The war began . His is a D90 nikon , mine ,are you ready ? Canon G 10 . It was a classical David & Goliath . Not mention he has a Ba and well I don't . The forum was to be my sling shot . Your answers will be a great help next we meet . Personally I think my photo's are just as good maybe even better . It's not always the tool but the craftsmen that can use it . :>):p

[firestarter]

I had no idea my question would provoke such input . Thank you everyone . The reason I asked which was better , is , a friend has N and I have C . The war began . His is a D90 nikon , mine ,are you ready ? Canon G 10 . It was a classical David & Goliath . Not mention he has a Ba and well I don't . The forum was to be my sling shot . Your answers will be a great help next we meet .

Are you really 63? This makes you sound more like a 12 year old...

[dukebound85]

Are you really 63? This makes you sound more like a 12 year old...

Why? people always debate brands all the time

[firestarter]

Why? people always debate brands all the time

They usually grow out of it by the end of their teens.

[Westside guy]

Like I said earlier - these threads always start out nice. But eventually they inexorably devolve into fanboi silliness.

And while we're at it, a newbie with a low end body isn't typically going to be in the market for manual focus.


Fact is, a newbie with a lowend body isn't typically going to be in the market for any lens other than the kit lens. Doesn't matter if it's Nikon, Canon, Pentax, what have you. Making arguments based on the lack of AF-S in older Nikon lenses is about as relevant as castigating Canon for having a different lens mount on their older glass.

And the fact that Nikon's AF-D wide angle primes suck so badly that 'the 14-24mm is good enough to take out all three AF-D primes' isn't something to be proud of.

This is just laughable fanboi talk at its worst. Galen Rowell regularly used some of those "sucky" AF-D primes - but heck, what did he know? He only pretty much invented the concept of 35mm landscape photographer. But the 14-24 is better - the (http://moosepeterson.com/blog/?p=7144) consensus (http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_zoom_01.html#AFS14-24FX) opinion (http://www.bythom.com/inthomsbag.htm) is the (http://www.stuckincustoms.com/nikon-14-24-review/) Nikon 14-24 zoom (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=NavBar&A=getItemDetail&Q=&sku=520635&is=GREY&si=rev#anchorToReadReviews) is an awesome lens (http://www.adorama.com/NK1424AFSU.html#ProductReviews).

[El Cabong]

They usually grow out of it by the end of their teens.

Really? In that case, I guess the internet is the leading cause of arrested development, if photography message boards are any indication.

NIKON FTW!!!!! :D

[luminosity]

Like I said earlier - these threads always start out nice. But eventually they inexorably devolve into fanboi silliness.



Fact is, a newbie with a lowend body isn't typically going to be in the market for any lens other than the kit lens. Doesn't matter if it's Nikon, Canon, Pentax, what have you. Making arguments based on the lack of AF-S in older Nikon lenses is about as relevant as castigating Canon for having a different lens mount on their older glass.



This is just laughable fanboi talk at its worst. Galen Rowell regularly used some of those "sucky" AF-D primes - but heck, what did he know? He only pretty much invented the concept of 35mm landscape photographer. But the 14-24 is better - the (http://moosepeterson.com/blog/?p=7144) consensus (http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_zoom_01.html#AFS14-24FX) opinion (http://www.bythom.com/inthomsbag.htm) is the (http://www.stuckincustoms.com/nikon-14-24-review/) Nikon 14-24 zoom (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=NavBar&A=getItemDetail&Q=&sku=520635&is=GREY&si=rev#anchorToReadReviews) is an awesome lens (http://www.adorama.com/NK1424AFSU.html#ProductReviews).

Of course it's better. I don't think anyone who knows Nikon lenses would ever dispute that. But, where it isn't better is weight. Canon has made two 24/1.4s in the time since Nikon released the 24/2.8D. It's a lot easier to carry around the 20/24/28/35 primes than it is the 14-24.

[firestarter]

This is just laughable fanboi talk at its worst. Galen Rowell regularly used some of those "sucky" AF-D primes - but heck, what did he know? He only pretty much invented the concept of 35mm landscape photographer. But the 14-24 is better - the (http://moosepeterson.com/blog/?p=7144) consensus (http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_zoom_01.html#AFS14-24FX) opinion (http://www.bythom.com/inthomsbag.htm) is the (http://www.stuckincustoms.com/nikon-14-24-review/) Nikon 14-24 zoom (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=NavBar&A=getItemDetail&Q=&sku=520635&is=GREY&si=rev#anchorToReadReviews) is an awesome lens (http://www.adorama.com/NK1424AFSU.html#ProductReviews).

Yes, that's all very well - but how is that relevant to the OP, who just wants to prove to his buddy with a Nikon D90 that a Canon G10 is better?

Please read the thread before responding! :rolleyes: (Claps slowly)

[joelypolly]

Canon.... hands down... or maybe Nikon... I donno or maybe Pentax.... perhaps Sony....
At the end of the day they all take photos and that's really all you want from a camera. How you want to get here is all up to you. If you can take better photos with a Canon G over your friends D90 then you are perhaps a better photographer than your friend. Your tools can only take you so far before you run into your limits similarly you tools may limit your ability if they are unsuited to the job.

[compuwar]

Not to nitpick, but, you listed "85mm" as one of Nikon's "best" lenses, which I'm assuming is the 85mm f/3.5 DX Macro (aka Micro). However, it isn't a replacement for the 85mm f/1.4D or f/1.8D, though there's a rumored prime refresh coming next year. Similarly, the


There have been "rumored prime refreshes" for the last 5 years. Nikon's lens folks haven't been driven by marketing outside of the superzoom and kit lenses that get released with each new body. They still get to work a lot on what interests them.

If you've spent less money on your body and you need a macro, then the Tamron 90mm SP Di works fine on your low-end body and works well for portraits too- no big hole there.


105mm f/2.8 AF-S Macro isn't a replacement for the 105mm DC f/2D, nor is there a real AF-S equivalent for focal lengths you didn't list, such as the


The 105 DC was never a heavily popular lens, and frankly the DC portion is generally better-served with PS these days anyway. The 105VR is a replacement for the 105 Micro, which has always been on the short list of great Nikkors. I wouldn't be overly surprised if Nikon weren't selling off a batch of 105DCs from a mid-1990's production run still. Neither of those lenses is a budget lens anyway. Your typical D5000 user isn't going to be interested in the price or focal length.


135mm DC f/2D, or either of Nikon's fisheyes. All of these remain listed on Nikon's website (at least their US site - couldn't be bothered to check others).


Like the 105 DC, the 135DC is a specialty lens, and hardly something a beginner is going to pick up. More importantly, both the 105DC and 135DC are focal lengths that scream out for FX, as the DC is generally used in portraiture where they're both terrible angles of view on DX. I mean, you're seriously advocating that defocus control lenses at ~157.5mm and ~202.5 are missed on DX format cameras? Which of the two do you own and use frequently?

Frankly, if you need AF for a fisheye, you've got way bigger problems than we have time to talk about here.

But exotic lenses that never sold in vast quantities even when they autofocused on every single camera Nikon sold are hardly ringing arguments for the current strategy.


Of course, these aren't necessarily lenses that the majority of new camera owners, or really, photographers in general, would be interested in, but they are nevertheless inaccessible - at least, to an extent - to the entry-level


Not only aren't they necessarily lenses the majority of new camera owners or really photographers in general would be interested in- they're limited-production lenses that never sold in large numbers anyway- in the case of the 135mm DC, I'm pretty-sure it's been discontinued.

Nikon had a choice- they could make the D40 and the bodies that followed it really inexpensive, or they could choose to include a screwdriver focus motor. They chose the right way for the market, otherwise they wouldn't have been selling boatloads of new entry-level cameras and taking market share from pretty-much everyone.


Nikon user. In addition, those with less money to spend can get good deals on useful older lenses, particularly the 50mm f/1.8D or the 35-70mm f/2.8D, but also some of the (admittedly surpassed by the newer zooms) f/2.8 primes. There are also a few third-party lenses that either lack versions with built-in autofocus or have cheaper body-driven versions.


I don't think you've been watching used prices on the 35-70 f/2.8 AF-D if you think there's a "good deal" out there anymore. While you used to be able to pick up a good sample for ~$350, they now start at $650, and good samples tend to be in the $800 range.

For instance:

http://www.h1photo.com/1963.html

Used, $794.95

Hardly the lens a budget-conscious purchaser is looking for. (I've been considering selling mine and upgrading the the (wider, better) Sigma 24-70 HSM for $150.

As for the 50mm, the 35mm DX costs less than the delta between the bodies that will AF it and the 50mm, and is a more appropriate angle of view on a DX sensor. That's Nikon's answer, and frankly it's a pretty good answer.


In any case, I just think that when people choose to buy a budget camera, they should be able to use budget lenses (to their full functionality, FX/DX quibbles aside) on them, instead of having to (ironically) upgrade in order to do so.

There are plenty of budget lenses available that AF on the low-end Nikon bodies. The market is full of consumer-grade zooms that AF just fine. More importantly, Nikon's current strategy has them selling more cameras and gaining more market share- so they're hardly likely to worry too much about people purchasing 15 year old lenses- and the most likely segment who cares about that are going to be picking up higher-end cameras for the most part anyway. Worrying about the corner cases who aren't going to purchase new lenses would be silly at this point as the strategy is working well enough.

[compuwar]

While I very much respect your thoughts, compuwar, you cannot realistically expect to hold up the 14-24 as a replacement for top-notch WA primes, mainly because of the cost issue (not quality, as the 14-24 gives up nothing to anything).


Look at the MTFs for those "top-notch" lenses. I don't know how many times you've shot into the sun with older Nikkors, but I'll tell you- the 14-24 wins. By a large margin. Frankly though, if you need AF on a wide angle prime, go buy a Canon Rebel. The new 35mm DX is a good lens- while I haven't looked at its MTFs, I'd bet it's competitive with lots of older glass. With DX, those WA primes aren't that wide anyway- other than the 14mm, which is what, about $100 less than the 14-24mm?


You also cannot possibly be serious about the 85/3.5 being the top lens at that focal length. The 85/1.4 must still be considered as such, and the new macro lens cannot be used normally on the D3/x/s/700 or any film camera


That's my bad, I had the 85 listed as an exception, then thought I saw an announcement for an AF-S version that I'd missed. But the Tamron 90mm SP Di fits that notch just fine and all the newer versions have a built-in AF motor. And yes, the new macro lens CAN be used on a D3/x/x/700. Nikon's DX compatibility is just fine- at least on my D3x it is. I used the Sigma 10-20mm, which is a DX lens at 10mm on my D3x about a week ago- no problems at all and the images are close enough to my D2x in terms of overall size and IQ that it's moot which camera body I shoot with- where did you get the idea that DX lenses don't work on FX bodies?

To be fair, I also neglected the 17-35 AF-S too.


The same goes for the 50/1.8 to some extent, though the 50/1.4 has already been updated.

The 50mm isn't a great FL on the DX sensor for a lot of shooters- and it's been updated, and Sigma also offers an HSM version, so we're back to price (but look ath the MTFs and new formula for the Nikkor 50mm, it's NOT the same lens.)

My point remains though- there's plenty of coverage for lenses that work on the low-end bodies, and for most people buying them, there's zero impact on not having AF-D compatibility. Throw in the price increases on all the "good" used AF-D lenses over the last 18 months and you pretty-much get out of their price range anyway.

If you look back, you'll find that I used to advocate the 35-70mm AF-D as a great all-purpose lens with good to great quality and a great price. I think I paid about $325 for my current copy. An equivalent EX+ is about $600 at KEH now, and I've seen them selling in lots of other places for $800+. Ditto the 20-35mm AF-D, which I prefer at 24mm to the 24mm prime- it's only real issue is lens flare into the sun for me, but it's no longer the $450 bargain that it was- now going for $850 at KEH in excellent condition and $950+ in other places!

Heck, the one time I forgot about AF-D compatibility and lent my 80-400mm to a friend to shoot track on his D40, he came back with about as many keepers as he'd have had in AF mode anyway. But again, for the target market, it's much ado about nothing IMO.

Paul

[compuwar]

Compuwar - after your promising first post in this thread calmly stating how any camera is adequate, you now seem to have switched back into full Nikon fanboy mode.


Call it what you wish- the fact is that Nikon's best lenses are almost all AF-S.


This post of yours is completely misdirected. You're arguing that Nikon's top lenses aren't AF-D, they're AF-S. Well guess what, you're completely correct! Nikon's new expensive great glass is AF-S, but these aren't the lenses that a low end SLR owner will buy as their second lens after the kit one!


Well. just in case you haven't been watching the market (and trust me, Nikon watches the market) you'll find that Nikon was the first DSLR company to get past the 1.2-1.3 lenses per body figure that's been relatively stable a number for quite a number of years. They got to ~1.8 in the last ~3 years, and guess what? They've done it with the 18-200VR, which seems to be the second lens of choice for low-end DLSR owners after the kit lens. They also did it by offering two-lens factory kits, which have been selling quite well for them. The 18-200 isn't stellar, and it isn't cheap- but they sell very well.

More importantly, few of the folks who purchase a 50mm lens after buying the kit use it with any regularity. Most of those who do update to higher-end bodies inside of two years anyway. It's just not the big deal that people make it out to be- I'm sorry if that offends your sensibilities.


The advantage of the Canon, Minolta/Sony and Pentax systems is that the newbie owner has their pick of pretty good autofocus prime and zoom lenses for not much money. How about a 20mm 2.8 / 50mm 1.8 / 85mm 1.8 kit? Can on a Canon, can't on the Nikon (at least not with autofocus).


You're making the strawman argument that those focal lengths in a prime lens are the target of our theoretical newbie. I've been shooting seriously for decades and I don't own a prime in any of those focal lengths, so I'm going to have to again disagree that it's an important issue. More importantly, many of the folks I know don't shoot with any of those focal lengths with any regularity- unless they're shooting with a zoom and just happen to hit one. I do know a couple of folks who use the 85mm for macros- but the Tamron fits that need for our budget-conscious newbie just fine.

If it is an issue for you, then Nikon's low-end bodies aren't right for you- that should be obvious to anyone- and I've never made the argument otherwise- but the empirical evidence of Nikon's recent market share advances seem to indicate that it's not the issue people here make it out to be. Moreover, their lens sales data from the D70 and D50 would probably argue that the cheap 50mm wasn't all that big a seller for new DSLR owners either- because they do track and act on what sells.

My entire argument is that for a new DX user, there are plenty of lenses to cover their needs. I can get any almost Nikon lens made since Nikon started making AF lenses on either of my two Nikon cameras- the only "wide angle" prime I own is the 24mm, and I don't think I've had it on a camera body in at least 4 years.


And while we're at it, a newbie with a low end body isn't typically going to be in the market for manual focus.
And the fact that Nikon's AF-D wide angle primes suck so badly that 'the 14-24mm is good enough to take out all three AF-D primes' isn't something to be proud of.

You might want to look at the MTFs of the 14-24 against say the Canon 14mm L II before you make such sweeping fanboy-sounding statements- because the Canon 14mm prime, which is better than the Nikon 14mm prime also gets its butt spanked by the 14-24mm ;)

[El Cabong]

There have been "rumored prime refreshes" for the last 5 years. Nikon's lens folks haven't been driven by marketing outside of the superzoom and kit lenses that get released with each new body. They still get to work a lot on what interests them.

If you've spent less money on your body and you need a macro, then the Tamron 90mm SP Di works fine on your low-end body and works well for portraits too- no big hole there.

...except that there's a big difference between an f/3.5 and a f/1.4. Also, your list was of Nikon AF-S lenses, not third party lenses, so I was pointing out a hole. The prime refresh rumor was beside the point, and was tossed in as a concession to your original argument that Nikon's AF-S lineup is (or will be, should the refresh go through this year) fairly complete (but if you want to argue against it, go for it).

The 105 DC was never a heavily popular lens, and frankly the DC portion is generally better-served with PS these days anyway. [...] Like the 105 DC, the 135DC is a specialty lens, and hardly something a beginner is going to pick up. [...] Frankly, if you need AF for a fisheye, you've got way bigger problems than we have time to talk about here.
[...]
Nikon had a choice- they could make the D40 and the bodies that followed it really inexpensive, or they could choose to include a screwdriver focus motor. They chose the right way for the market, otherwise they wouldn't have been selling boatloads of new entry-level cameras and taking market share from pretty-much everyone.

Nikon's marketing strategy is beside the point; I was simply pointing out missing lenses in your list. Regardless of whether all entry-level shooters would want these lenses (really, the DC lenses are better used with manual control as well), full functionality is simply not an option with them, and the focal lengths remain missing in the AF-S lens lineup.

I don't think you've been watching used prices on the 35-70 f/2.8 AF-D if you think there's a "good deal" out there anymore. While you used to be able to pick up a good sample for ~$350, they now start at $650, and good samples tend to be in the $800 range.

I feel like I'm really nitpicking now, but still:
http://www.keh.com/Search-Products/1/NA/7/35-70/Grade/0/0/SE.aspx

Here, they seem to start at around $450 and go to about $675 for a "like new" sample. Adorama currently has one in "Excellent" condition for about $500. Regardless of what might be said about the generosity of these ratings or the typicality/longevity of these prices, the lens is still a bargain compared to ~$1800 for a new 24-70mm f/2.8, which is the point.

There are plenty of budget lenses available that AF on the low-end Nikon bodies. The market is full of consumer-grade zooms that AF just fine. [...] Worrying about the corner cases who aren't going to purchase new lenses would be silly at this point as the strategy is working well enough.

I'm well aware of the proliferation of ~18/55-whatever millimeter consumer grade lenses. They don't replace the larger (than f/3.5) aperture primes that are cheaper alternatives to their AF-S cousins, most notably the 50mm f/1.8. Again, it's less about Nikon's business strategy (good for them!) than with the frustration experienced by new users who feel like they've wasted money. The point was not that Nikon must be a terrible company run by inhuman monsters because they released the D40 (though many might agree with the sentiment); the point was that it's very possible to consider the purchase of a D40/60/etc to be a mistake, because of its compatibility issues.

re firestarter: Try not to feed the troll. ;)

[luminosity]

Look at the MTFs for those "top-notch" lenses. I don't know how many times you've shot into the sun with older Nikkors, but I'll tell you- the 14-24 wins.

Absolutely it wins. You're preaching to the choir on that one. The 14-24 has but one competitor in all of existence, and that's the 20mm Zeiss. That's the only lens in its focal length range I've read about that can meet the 14-24 on even ground.

I've seen numerous head to head lens tests where the 14-24 embarrasses whatever it's competing with.

What I'm getting at is that Nikon does not have anything like the Canon 24/1.4 II (not the original version, but rather the new one, and that I have to clarify it tells you how much more work Canon has done on WA primes). The 24/1.4 weighs 533g, which is a lot less than the 14-24. I've seen some excellent work done using the 24/1.4, and I wish Nikon had an equivalent lens. Canon does not have the 14-24 either, but for me, the 24/1.4 makes more sense. Of course, I do have the 24-70, which is what I use for my WA needs at the moment.

I want revised wide angle primes that are relatively light and made with the latest optical advances. The 20/24/28/35 lenses are all light and all pretty old. Is that too much to expect? If it is, just say so. I'm not militant, only expectant.

And yes, the new macro lens CAN be used on a D3/x/x/700. Nikon's DX compatibility is just fine- at least on my D3x it is

Well, remember that your DX megapixel crop on the D3x is almost what my entire sensor complement is on the D700. It works, of course, but not without vignetting in FX mode.

The lenses work, of course, but with limitations. Either you're using it in DX mode (5 megapixels on the D3/700) or or you're using it in FX mode (vignetting). Am I missing something?

Ditto the 20-35mm AF-D, which I prefer at 24mm to the 24mm prime- it's only real issue is lens flare into the sun for me, but it's no longer the $450 bargain that it was- now going for $850 at KEH in excellent condition and $950+ in other places!

And the 28-70/2.8 hit $1,500 and even a bit more at KEH for EX+ copies, at least as of a few months ago. That's a couple hundred more than new 24-70s were going for at B&H before the price increase.

[markie]

I have money in Canon glass from the film days, thus I have no choice. That's really how it works. I like Canon well enough. They work, they take good pictures. Nothing really wrong with them.

I sometimes look at Samsung and Sony DSLRs with a bit of longing but if I was buying into a system today, I'd still go Canon. Because Canon has the history of showing your system investment won't be outdated when you're ready to replace one component.

[luminosity]

I don't know if that's true. Canon ditched an entire mount system in 1987, whereas Nikon is still using the same mount it created in 1959. All Nikon lenses made since 1977 are good to go on any DSLR made today, though of course metering differs depending on the body.

[AlaskaMoose]

All the arguments about Canon versus Nikon are quite serious (as ulcers or hypertension). Both (not ulcers and hypertension, of course) are doing very well on the market, and both produce enough cameras and lenses to make anybody rich (or poor), so it would be nice to get along better than arguing about such silly things. I am certain that successful photographers don't have time to be arguing in this and other forums. Time is gold, you know :)
http://hierophyte.blogspot.com/2009/01/canon-and-nikon-tops-market-share.html

[compuwar]

I don't know if that's true. Canon ditched an entire mount system in 1987, whereas Nikon is still using the same mount it created in 1959. All Nikon lenses made since 1977 are good to go on any DSLR made today, though of course metering differs depending on the body.

There are few 35mm lenses from before 1977 that are really worth using, so though you were screwed if you used Canon at the time, that ship has really sailed.

[compuwar]

What I'm getting at is that Nikon does not have anything like the Canon 24/1.4 II (not the original version, but rather the new one, and that I have to clarify it tells you how much more work Canon has done on WA primes).


I find that these days I shoot at 35mm if I'm going to stitch and 20mm or father out if I'm not- but as I said, if you want WA primes, Canon is the system to use- I just think that most of the people griping are overplaying it- they likely don't even shoot that often (if at all) with the lenses they're harping about. I'd be happy to be proven wrong with some actual statistics though...


The 24/1.4 weighs 533g, which is a lot less than the 14-24. I've seen some excellent work done using the 24/1.4, and I wish Nikon had an equivalent lens. Canon does not have the 14-24 either, but for me, the 24/1.4 makes more sense. Of course, I do have the 24-70, which is what I use for my WA needs at the moment.


The only time lens weight worries me is when I'm either hand-holding the 400/2.8 or going to the top of a ridge with it. A tiny lens like the 14-24 wouldn't bother me a bit- but I'm admittedly larger than lots of people.


I want revised wide angle primes that are relatively light and made with the latest optical advances. The 20/24/28/35 lenses are all light and all pretty old. Is that too much to expect? If it is, just say so. I'm not militant, only expectant.


I think those days are mostly gone- unless the 35mm DX sells very well- Nikon is producing some very fine zooms, and the people who always complain about primes aren't always the people who purchase them- at this point in time, I'd bet that Nikon is selling more 24-70's and 70-200's than any of its primes. To meet the standards of today's photographers and produce wide angle lenses that will look good on high-end bodies it takes lens elements and non-simple optical formulas- especially at the wide end- so I think you're not too likely to see the four lenses above all roll out. Let's face it- the 24, 28 and 35mms aren't astoundingly wide, if I were in charge, I'd drop at least two of them completely- maybe three.

And yes, the new macro lens CAN be used on a D3/x/x/700. Nikon's DX compatibility is just fine- at least on my D3x it is


Well, remember that your DX megapixel crop on the D3x is almost what my entire sensor complement is on the D700. It works, of course, but not without vignetting in FX mode.

The lenses work, of course, but with limitations. Either you're using it in DX mode (5 megapixels on the D3/700) or or you're using it in FX mode (vignetting). Am I missing something?


Remember, you get to pay a premium for the D3x so that you get basically the equivalent of a D2x in DX mode. You either pay the piper, or you live with the consequences- only you can say if it's "worth" it to get a D3x over a D3 and D300- took me two months to come to the decision point.

Just the fact that for most folks not shooting for a living, the images from 5MP are good for most uses.


Ditto the 20-35mm AF-D, which I prefer at 24mm to the 24mm prime- it's only real issue is lens flare into the sun for me, but it's no longer the $450 bargain that it was- now going for $850 at KEH in excellent condition and $950+ in other places!

And the 28-70/2.8 hit $1,500 and even a bit more at KEH for EX+ copies, at least as of a few months ago. That's a couple hundred more than new 24-70s were going for at B&H before the price increase.

Yep, the used market is crazy right now, which is one of the reasons that folks on a tight budget aren't going to get a bargain out of a D5000 and older good glass. It may still be cheaper than new, but it's still over the price range of people who can only afford the D5000.

[compuwar]

Nikon's marketing strategy is beside the point; I was simply pointing out missing lenses in your list. Regardless of whether all entry-level shooters would want these lenses (really, the DC lenses are better used with manual control as well), full functionality is simply not an option with them, and the focal lengths remain missing in the AF-S lens lineup.


No, pretty-much all of the focal lengths are available in AF-S or HSM lenses, they're not available as primes, but they're represented. The last time I went through the entire Nikon and 3rd party list of current lenses I don't recall anything missing except the fisheyes, but I'm not going to spend half an hour on it again (I did find one Sigma lens listed as HSM that wasn't, but it overlapped two others.)

The fact that Zeiss is selling ZF lenses shows that many people who care about primes aren't as picky about AF as you- but more importantly Nikon's sales figures let them know how many people are going to buy new primes- and that number hasn't been large enough to prioritize them over money-makers like the 18-200- so the imaginary demand seems larger than the actual demand.

In fact, if the demand were anywhere near what people in this thread were making it out to be, Sigma, who already make motorized versions of their primes for Canon bodies would be churning out F-mount variants left and right. I don't think they're seeing the market either. Nikon doesn't seem to be losing any share to Canon either- so despite your assertions, I see no evidence that it's a significant issue for a significant number of people.


I feel like I'm really nitpicking now, but still:
http://www.keh.com/Search-Products/1/NA/7/35-70/Grade/0/0/SE.aspx

Here, they seem to start at around $450 and go to about $675 for a "like new" sample. Adorama currently has one in "Excellent" condition for about $500. Regardless of what might be said about the generosity of these ratings or the typicality/longevity of these prices, the lens is still a bargain compared to ~$1800 for a new 24-70mm f/2.8, which is the point.


I've looked at probably ~50 samples of the 35-70mm AF-D, I specifically said "Good sample" because it's easy to find bad samples, it was a much-abused newspaper lens for decades. For KEH, I'd only look at EX+ or better, which start, as I said at around $650 (In general, EX is the bottom line at KEH, but the 35-70 and 80-200's are often more heavily used than say a 135DC ;) ) For about $250 more, you can get a brand new Sigma 24-70 (with a warranty), which will have a better AOV for your crop sensor body and perform significantly better overall. That works out to less than $2/month over the life of the lens.


I'm well aware of the proliferation of ~18/55-whatever millimeter consumer grade lenses. They don't replace the larger (than f/3.5) aperture primes that are cheaper alternatives to their AF-S cousins, most notably the 50mm f/1.8. Again, it's less about Nikon's business strategy (good for them!) than with the frustration experienced by new users who feel like they've wasted money. The point was not that Nikon must be a terrible company run by inhuman monsters because they released the D40 (though many might agree with the sentiment); the point was that it's very possible to consider the purchase of a D40/60/etc to be a mistake, because of its compatibility issues.


Once again, few users "feel like they've wasted money" because a very low percentage of them will ever own more that the kit lens. An infinitesimal percentage want a prime lens that the 35mm f/1.8 won't substitute for.

Once again though- prove your point for me- which of the DC lenses do you own and how many shots a year do you take with them? Because if it's none, then all the complaints about those lenses are basically moot- there are lots of people who like the *idea* of having primes available who spend no money on them- even fewer of the folks who go buy a D40 or D5000 want a fast lens for it's DoF, they just want low-light pictures, and sensor evolution is taking care of that.

Everyone I've met who owns a D40 is perfectly happy with the kit lens and/or the kit lens an the 18-200, so show me your muddled masses- because DPR isn't full of people moaning about it- and that's probably the one place you'd see them in throngs.

I can easily count the AF-D lenses I see on D90s and D300s when I'm photographing somewhere that's popular with tourists or other photographers. In the last two months, I've easily seen 100 Nikon AF-D compatible cameras out, and if I exclude myself I've seen three or four with AF-D lenses attached, and most of that is out shooting birds, where going long and AF-S is generally not cheap. I suppose all the D90 and D300 owners could be lottery winners though. Perhaps though it's your assertion that the folks with AF-D compatible cameras are atypical Nikon users?

[DELINDA]

(Yes, that's all very well - but how is that relevant to the OP, who just wants to prove to his buddy with a Nikon D90 that a Canon G10 is better?)
There was nothing to prove , just a good natured debate . As you (I hope ) can see from this forum what a question can do . In debate and with questions a lot can be learned . This has been an education on both brand name and related equipment . Not to mention personalities . In the end , its all personal . what you like , can afford , and are passionate about . Thanks

[firestarter]

You're making the strawman argument that those focal lengths in a prime lens are the target of our theoretical newbie. I've been shooting seriously for decades and I don't own a prime in any of those focal lengths, so I'm going to have to again disagree that it's an important issue.

How on earth can you use yourself as an example in this discussion? You are an advanced or pro photographer and have money to burn on Nikon's most expensive glass and bodies... what is/is not an issue to you has no relevance to someone picking a second lens for their low end camera.

You probably don't own any of Nikon's wide end primes because they're mostly quite poor and slow. You can't admit that, because you're a fanboy - and instead prefer to write page after page of justification regarding who might/might not buy a lens, what Nikon't engineers spend their time on, yadda yadda. FYI my last camera was a D300, I owned the 20 f2.8 and 50 f1.8 (amongst others). I'm a person who chooses to shoot primes - a habit I got into back when I shot exclusively Hasselblad.

More importantly, many of the folks I know don't shoot with any of those focal lengths with any regularity- unless they're shooting with a zoom and just happen to hit one.

You're being deliberately obstructive - I used 24mm as an example, but could have said 18mm, 20mm, 24mm, 28mm, 35mm. They're all old lenses that need a refresh. Do you use any of those focal lengths?

My entire argument is that for a new DX user, there are plenty of lenses to cover their needs. I can get any almost Nikon lens made since Nikon started making AF lenses on either of my two Nikon cameras- the only "wide angle" prime I own is the 24mm, and I don't think I've had it on a camera body in at least 4 years.

Again, you can't use yourself as an example here.

Just to reiterate the original point I made - I think someone entering the Nikon system at the low end should be aware of the status of Nikon's prime lenses and the fact that AF-D isn't going to autofocus. For certain groups of people wanting value for money and a light weight rig (I travel a lot and like to keep weight down) this may be a big deal. That is all.

It's a shame too... Nikon made a big deal of their lens compatibility back when Canon switched lens mount to EF - but this is now something they're turning their back on.

You might want to look at the MTFs of the 14-24 against say the Canon 14mm L II before you make such sweeping fanboy-sounding statements- because the Canon 14mm prime, which is better than the Nikon 14mm prime also gets its butt spanked by the 14-24mm ;)

What is the purpose of this statement? I don't care about the 14mm - I shoot full frame and never really use anything wider than 20mm. I have no problem with the 14-24mm being a good lens (and some Canon body owners actually use it with an adapter - because it is so good).

This last statement of yours is quite revealing of your character. Lens-A-from-Canon-beats-Lens-B-from-Nikon-but-Lens-C-from-Nikon-beats-both-so-there! isn't something I generally loose sleep over.

[luminosity]

The only time lens weight worries me is when I'm either hand-holding the 400/2.8 or going to the top of a ridge with it. A tiny lens like the 14-24 wouldn't bother me a bit- but I'm admittedly larger than lots of people.


Maybe you're so accustomed to what you shoot that you've somewhat lost touch for how life is for most of the rest of us. The 14-24 is not a "tiny" lens for most people, and certainly not for me. Street photography is what I love most and it is not a lens I would take on the street with me. Comparing a lens to a 400/2.8 is silly, because of course most lenses would seem small compared to it. But that's not life for most photographers, and it isn't a realistic standard.

[El Cabong]

Keeping it as short as possible.

No, pretty-much all of the focal lengths are available in AF-S or HSM lenses, they're not available as primes, but they're represented. The last time I went through the entire Nikon and 3rd party list of current lenses I don't recall anything missing except the fisheyes

Your original list was supposedly of Nikon AF-S lenses. HSM is not AF-S. Third party is not Nikon. I was just pointing out that there were focal lengths (with certain apertures - not counting consumer zooms) missing from it. You disagree? Fine.

The fact that Zeiss is selling ZF lenses shows that [...] Nikon's sales figures let them know how many people are going to buy new primes- and that number hasn't been large enough to prioritize them over money-makers like the 18-200- so the imaginary demand seems larger than the actual demand.

In fact, if the demand were anywhere near what people in this thread were making it out to be, Sigma, who already make motorized versions of their primes for Canon bodies would be churning out F-mount variants left and right. I don't think they're seeing the market either. Nikon doesn't seem to be losing any share to Canon either- so despite your assertions, I see no evidence that it's a significant issue

Once again, I'm not talking about Nikon's business strategies to market cameras to the masses (to do so would bring in the Coolpix line, which is a whole other kettle of fish). However, since you bring it up, Sigma (and Tamron) have been updating a few of their F-mount lenses to include AF motors. So.

I've looked at probably ~50 samples of the 35-70mm AF-D[...]KEH, I'd only look at EX+ [...] 35-70 and 80-200's are often more heavily used [...] $2/month over the life of the lens.

In any case, the point remains that the 35-70 is a cheap Nikkor alternative that doesn't autofocus on a D40/etc. The main point was not the price, about which I said I was nitpicking. Glad you could join in. Third party yada yada yada.

Once again, few users "feel like they've wasted money" because a very low percentage of them will ever own more that the kit lens. An infinitesimal percentage want a prime lens that the 35mm f/1.8 won't substitute for.

Maybe the percentage of users who regret their purchase is beyond trivial and is equivalent to the ratio of the surface area of a deer tick to that of China; the fact is, I know more than one user who has, so I used it as an example of Nikon buyer's remorse.

Once again though- prove your point for me- which of the DC lenses do you own and how many shots a year do you take with them?

You're missing the point by harping on the DC lenses. It'll give you a warm fuzzy feeling to know that I don't own a DC lens, as much as I'd love to (not in the budget - saving up for one of them purdy 85mm AF-Ds). Again, the point, copied and pasted from a previous post:

I was simply pointing out missing lenses in your list.

Tada.

Everyone I've met who owns a D40 is perfectly happy with the kit lens and/or the kit lens an the 18-200, so show me your muddled masses- because DPR isn't full of people moaning about it- and that's probably the one place you'd see them in throngs.
[...]
Perhaps though it's your assertion that the folks with AF-D compatible cameras are atypical Nikon users?

You're still missing the point. Or maybe you're setting up more strawman arguments. I never said that the townsfolk were out with the pitchforks and torches over this, I simply said that I personally know a couple of people who have regretted buying a D40. I suppose that we can now get into an argument about the validity of anecdotal evidence, but I'd prefer that we don't.

As far as your strawman argument, sure: I do believe folks with AF-D compatible cameras are atypical Nikon users. Everyone knows that all people who buy Nikon only ever use D40s (I know I don't!). Prove me wrong!

[compuwar]

How on earth can you use yourself as an example in this discussion? You are an advanced or pro photographer and have money to burn on Nikon's most expensive glass and bodies... what is/is not an issue to you has no relevance to someone picking a second lens for their low end camera.


Because I have never owned a Nikon camera body that won't AF with an AF-D lens (and we're at about 19 years now for me.) So- these hoards of theoretical newbies clamoring for AF-D compatibility on their very first camera body are a stretch.


You probably don't own any of Nikon's wide end primes because they're mostly quite poor and slow. You can't admit that, because you're a fanboy - and instead prefer to write page after page of justification regarding who might/might not buy a lens, what Nikon't engineers spend their time on, yadda yadda. FYI my last camera was a D300, I owned the 20 f2.8 and 50 f1.8 (amongst others). I'm a person who chooses to shoot primes - a habit I got into back when I shot exclusively Hasselblad.


You keep using that word- but you're the one who brought other manufacturers into the conversation- and frankly there are at least two or three times where I've recommended people shoot Canon if they want wide primes- but make it personal- if I'm a fanboy, you're an imbecile.

I have simply stated the case that (a) unlike the original posting I responded to, it is my assertion that "most of Nikon's best lenses" are AF-S NOT AF-D. Now you're trying to drag your quality inferences on Nikon's primes into it- compared to other manufacturers- which (a) wasn't part of the initial conversation and (b) smacks of fanboyism (Pot. Kettle.) Then when the fact that the 14-24 spanks not only Nikon, but Canon and Zeiss's efforts in primes is brought up, your'e suddenly not so interested in 14mm- sounds hypocritical to me.


You're being deliberately obstructive - I used 24mm as an example, but could have said 18mm, 20mm, 24mm, 28mm, 35mm. They're all old lenses that need a refresh. Do you use any of those focal lengths?


Yep, as a matter a fact I use 20mm and 35mm- which you'd see if you actually read the postings in the thread. You are aware that there's a 35mm DX prime that's a new lens, aren't you? You assert that they "need" a refresh, but up until last year, Nikon didn't have an FX sensor to put in front of any primes- limiting the market even more.


Again, you can't use yourself as an example here.

Just to reiterate the original point I made - I think someone entering the Nikon system at the low end should be aware of the status of Nikon's prime lenses and the fact that AF-D isn't going to autofocus. For certain groups of people wanting value for money and a light weight rig (I travel a lot and like to keep weight down) this may be a big deal. That is all.


I think they should be aware of it too- but I also think they should put it into perspective, and not have it blown out of proportion. The people in this thread are blowing it all out of proportion- funny how you can use yourself as an example, but I can't- hypocrite.


It's a shame too... Nikon made a big deal of their lens compatibility back when Canon switched lens mount to EF - but this is now something they're turning their back on.


Ok- now you're going to pin a decades-old marketing strategy on them? Plus, you do understand the difference between "all of my expensive glass won't fit on anything" and "this lens won't autofocus on teh cheapest bodies we make?" don't you? Or- let's take your tack "I don't care about statements made by a company in the 1970's. Only a Canon apologist would hald a grudge that long!"


What is the purpose of this statement? I don't care about the 14mm - I shoot full frame and never really use anything wider than 20mm. I have no problem with the 14-24mm being a good lens (and some Canon body owners actually use it with an adapter - because it is so good).


Becuase you said And the fact that Nikon's AF-D wide angle primes suck so badly that 'the 14-24mm is good enough to take out all three AF-D primes' isn't something to be proud of

So, you can't have it both ways- either it's a travesty that it's better than the primes, or it's "so good" that people decide to use it in manual focus mode on Canons. Funnily enough- they could pick up a D40 for about $350 and use it in AF mode (Oh! the Irony!)


This last statement of yours is quite revealing of your character. Lens-A-from-Canon-beats-Lens-B-from-Nikon-but-Lens-C-from-Nikon-beats-both-so-there! isn't something I generally loose sleep over.

Again with the personal attacks. I was responding to your assertion that the 14-24mm was supposedly an embarrassment to Nikon because it's IQ beat their primes by giving an example of a very good non-Nikon prime that it also beats. The fact that instead of acknowledging the fact that your assertion was silly you stoop to character assassination says more about your character than mine. Hypocrite.

[compuwar]

Keeping it as short as possible.

Your original list was supposedly of Nikon AF-S lenses. HSM is not AF-S. Third party is not Nikon. I was just pointing out that there were focal lengths (with certain apertures - not counting consumer zooms) missing from it. You disagree? Fine.


Let's keep it very short- my original list was a rebuttal that "most of Nikon's best lenses are still AF-D." You're the one who went off on a DC lens Jihad.

[firestarter]

<4 feet of screen-space filled with text>


Paul, you have a unique turn of logic which I (and it seems others) on this thread have difficulty dealing with.

I have better things to do with my time. Good day! :)

[AlaskaMoose]

:D:D:D Worrying so much about camera/lens brands probably makes it quite difficult to sleep at night.

[El Cabong]

Let's keep it very short- my original list was a rebuttal that "most of Nikon's best lenses are still AF-D." You're the one who went off on a DC lens Jihad.

My mentioning two DC lenses among a more than a half dozen other lenses = DC lens Jihad? You just chose to focus on minutiae instead of substance. I mentioned two 85mm lenses and a couple of fisheyes as well, you know. You wanna call a fisheye Jihad, too?

Terrorists armed with fisheye lenses... truly frightening. :eek:

[Earendil]

Something often times missed in these discussions, is if you know anyone with one type or another. I went with a Canon over a Nikon back in the day because 2 good friends both had Canons and associated Lenses.

Now days my father and I both have Canon's. He prefers wide angle stuff with his 10-22mm, and I prefer the nature/sports with a 70-200mm 4.0L. In both cases, when we desire we borrow the other persons lens. This would not work out if he had a Nikon, and I a Canon.

If you know no one with a DSLR, or anyone who is about to purchase one, than this point becomes moot.

[pdxflint]

After slogging through this whole thread... I'm not really sure what the dust up is all about... Would it be possible to simply have an honest debate here, including opinions where we agree to disagree, without it breaking down into personal attacks on someone's character, etc.?

There are certain kinds of words which are labels, implying something personal about someone else, that only serve to inflame feelings, create hostility and in the end don't contribute anything useful. Think... and reconsider before hitting "submit." It's easy to see where this "labeling" began to enter the "conversation" and if we just take that "moment," and people worked a little bit harder on trying to find the right words that aren't offensive, this could have actually been an informative, lively discussion. Instead, it broke down into a p!ssing match. Too bad.

"... can we all just get along?"

[pdxflint]

Without getting into a debate...(well... maybe I am just a bit...;)) but just to comment on my own experiences with Nikon. I started out with an entry level D50, which does have the screw drive. As it turns out, because I wasn't limited in my use of AF-D lenses, I bought 4 lenses that are all screw-drive lenses - Tokina 12-24, Nikkor 50 f/1.8, Nikkor 80-200 f/2.8 and Nikkor 300 AF f/4. But, I also bought a D300 body at about the same time, so if I had started out with a D40 I think my choices of lenses would have been exactly the same. One of the reasons I opted for the older Nikkor glass was because of budget, image and build quality, and the ability to keep them if I ever upgraded to FX. After using the D300 for a time, I've found I'm not in as much of a hurry to move to FX, so I am seriously considering the 17-55 f/2.8 DX lens, since it is widely available second-hand mint for around $850-900, and has excellent IQ, and gives me more useful FL than a 24-70 f/2.8. As for the AF-D primes, I seriously debated with myself the merits of the older 35mm f/2 vs. the new DX 35mm f/1.8. Still not sure which would be better, but one thing I like about the older glass is the lack of built-in AF motor. While this is a "benefit" in AF focus speed (sometimes) and is quieter, there is the additional chance for something to break (I've had two USM lenses fail when I shot Canon.) I also like the more 'retro' look of the older Nikkors and the ability to use them on older 35mm film bodies. Having said that, I'm not in the market for more than 1 prime wide angle, so even if Nikon refreshed them, I probably would skip them (unless they were spectacular, and fairly affordable.) I just don't want to be changing lenses all the time for different shots. If the pro zooms suffered in comparison image quality-wise, that might be different, but that's not the case, at least not with Nikon.

So, do I, as one individual Nikon shooter, really care if Nikon updates their wide-angle primes? Not really. I'd probably only use one, the 35mm, for a "normal" focal length on DX, but otherwise go with more modern zooms, as Compuwar suggested. Even if I had a D40 I could choose between the 14-24, the 17-35 (excellent for landscapes,) the 17-55f/2.8 for street, everyday stuff, including some portraiture. But, if I can afford those lenses, I'd probably get rid of the D40 anyway, and then I'd still have my 85 f/1.4, 100 f/2.8 micro, 135 f/2, 50mm f/1.4... heck, I'd have the whole Nikkor family to choose from. I'm not sure I'd hold my breath waiting for Nikon to make a whole bunch of wide-angle primes in AF-S for the limited market they'd be selling to - and somehow I don't think all the D40, D60, D3000 or D5000 buyers would really even be that market. The pros I know all have the 14-24, 24-70, 70-200 and so forth. Very few of them shoot with primes anymore, and I'm only speaking of the guys I know. So in the end, I don't see where the market would come from at this point... it would probably be limited, at best. Just my guess.

And, the only cameras that Nikon has failed to be "compatible" with as far as the original mount system and original AF is the very bottom of the dSLR line, which is mainly going to sell to folks moving up from point and shoot cameras, who will probably not be agonizing over the inability to use some legacy lenses. And, usually Nikon and all the third-party lens manufacturers clearly state, and any salesperson worth his commission, will inform the buyer about the limitations of screw-drive incompatibility, and it's then the buyer's choice. If they have regrets later that they bought the entry-level model when they really should have bought a little higher up in the food chain, well, that happens sometimes. It's not really a disaster. Just sell the D40 or D3000 and get a D90 and all the screw-drive glass you want. It's not that difficult to figure out. And if someone decides they're regretful they bought an entry level Nikon because they can't AF with a nifty-fifty or 85mm f/1.8 or similar, and they want to switch to Canon, or Olympus, or Pentax, or Sony...etc. instead of moving up to a more advanced Nikon camera (than their first Nikon,) more suited to growing their skills as a photographer, that's their choice. It doesn't make sense to me, but it is an individual choice.

:)

[luminosity]

If anything were ever to either drive me to Canon or cause me to start using a Canon system alongside my Nikon stuff, it would be their wide angle primes, along with the 135/2. The 200/2.8 wouldn't go amiss either (of course, we have the 180/2.8 as a counter to that).

[compuwar]

My mentioning two DC lenses among a more than a half dozen other lenses = DC lens Jihad? You just chose to focus on minutiae instead of substance. I mentioned two 85mm lenses and a couple of fisheyes as well, you know. You wanna call a fisheye Jihad, too?

Terrorists armed with fisheye lenses... truly frightening. :eek:

What I'm saying is that you completely ignored the substance of my post (qantity of Nikkors that are AF-S vs AF-D) and went for the minutiae- so pot, this is the kettle, you're still black. For someone who often uses sarcasm in posts, you're very sensitive to it.

Shoot at Conowingo Dam with a fisheye and the anti-terrorist forces may actually come after you!

[compuwar]

Something often times missed in these discussions, is if you know anyone with one type or another. I went with a Canon over a Nikon back in the day because 2 good friends both had Canons and associated Lenses.

Now days my father and I both have Canon's. He prefers wide angle stuff with his 10-22mm, and I prefer the nature/sports with a 70-200mm 4.0L. In both cases, when we desire we borrow the other persons lens. This would not work out if he had a Nikon, and I a Canon.

If you know no one with a DSLR, or anyone who is about to purchase one, than this point becomes moot.

This is good advice so long as you temper it with the fact that either your bank account or your friendship or both can handle having a borrowed lens dropped- or you can insure the lenses you borrow. I've seen horrendous stories of friendships broken up by a dropped $1500 lens that the borrower simply couldn't afford to replace.

[Edge100]

my IQ doesn't seem to diminish when a new body comes along

We should all recite this mantra at least 10 times every day. My 1DmkII produces the same IQ as it did on the day it was made. It (and its cousin the mkIIN) was THE sports camera for over 3 years. It doesn't produce the detail of the modern super-high MP cameras. It doesn't have the high-ISO capabilities of modern cameras. But it isn't any worse than it has ever been.

As for the Nikon vs. Canon debate; get what works for you. I like Canon's lens lineup, so I shoot Canon. On the other hand, I'm in the market for a 5DmkII (to supplement my 1DmkII, not replace it), and while I wish it had the AF system in the D700, the D700 doesn't work with the 135 f/2L. But if I were forced to shoot Nikon for the rest of my life, I'd be just fine.

Get whatever works for you.

[El Cabong]

What I'm saying is that you completely ignored the substance of my post (qantity of Nikkors that are AF-S vs AF-D) and went for the minutiae- so pot, this is the kettle, you're still black. For someone who often uses sarcasm in posts, you're very sensitive to it.

Shoot at Conowingo Dam with a fisheye and the anti-terrorist forces may actually come after you!

When I said that I was "nitpicking" in the first post, I meant it. You omitted a few lenses that might be considered the "best" in their class (including the 85mm f/1.4, for which there isn't a standout third-party alternative). That was beside the main point of that post (people might want to use AF-D lenses). Now, though, I think it'd be best to agree to disagree without descending further into the ad hominem stuff.

And yeah, I've definitely run into trouble on multiple occasions, with overzealous/underinformed police officers who thought my camera made me part of some sort of terrorist reconnaissance mission. Who knew that grain silos in the middle of nowhere were targets?

[compuwar]

When I said that I was "nitpicking" in the first post, I meant it. You omitted a few lenses that might be considered the "best" in their class (including the 85mm f/1.4, for which there isn't a standout


But I still stand by my assertion- even adding 5 or so AF-D lenses doesn't tip the balance.


And yeah, I've definitely run into trouble on multiple occasions, with overzealous/underinformed police officers who thought my camera made me part of some sort of terrorist reconnaissance mission. Who knew that grain silos in the middle of nowhere were targets?

Maybe those aren't grain silos ;)

Conowingo is unique though- track an Eagle past the dam with a super-telephoto and they don't even blink. Put on a wide angle lens and start snapping away at the dam and either the "public education officers" or the Hartford County Sheriff will be along to have a chat. I think everywhere else, the bigger the lens, the bigger the hassle. I've certainly found nowhere else that's built observation platforms and still has issues with observers. Since it's not public land though, they get to make up their wacky rules. >600mm of lens on a 24.5MP camera pointed at the dam? Good to go! 6MP at 10mm? Time for officer friendly to come over!

The whole public education officer thing is new this year I think- the county must have gotten tired of dispatching a unit every few minutes from November to January. The swanky security guard uniforms help! I wish I'd gotten a picture of one of them last time I was out, but I wasn't sure if that was like the dam rule and I'd hate to be shut out of the site. Plus, the 400mm with a TC17EII still wouldn't have flattered her :eek: