Nikon does update the 70-200, announces new camera and 18-200mm

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by compuwar, Jul 29, 2009.

  1. compuwar macrumors 601

    compuwar

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2006
    Location:
    Northern/Central VA
    #1
    http://www.europe-nikon.com/press_room/index.html?locale=en_GB&bandwidth=broad

    I have to say I'm mildly surprised they updated the 70-200 before a lot of other lenses (like the 80-400-) the 18-200 I can see- it's selling like hotcakes but the competition is heating up so improvement is a good thing. No more zoom creep on the 18-200mm, and FX with a shorter 70-200-- could this mean that Nikon's actually started listening to complaints?
     
  2. GoCubsGo macrumors Nehalem

    GoCubsGo

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2005
    #2
    Hm surprising really that they're updating the 70-200. I agree with you about the 18-200.

    I am still struggling between the 50-200 or whatever it is and the 24-70.
     
  3. Acsom macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2009
    #3
    Canon's owned image quality in the popular high end 70-200 f/2.8 category; no doubt Nikon has attempted a leapfrog. If successful, that is good news for camera lovers everywhere.
     
  4. dllavaneras macrumors 68000

    dllavaneras

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2005
    Location:
    Caracas, Venezuela
    #4
    They not only released two new lenses, but two new cameras: the D300S and the D3000 (which replaces the D60).

    I just want to see what Canon has to say to that. :D
     
  5. cosmokanga2 macrumors 6502a

    cosmokanga2

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2008
    Location:
    Canada, where we live in igloos.
    #5
    I'm going to be in the market for a 70-200mm, so this is good news for me. Waiting for the reviews/comparisons to see though if the new one is worth the extra $$$$. Now, off to work to save up for its crazy price.
     
  6. luminosity macrumors 65816

    luminosity

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2006
    Location:
    Arizona
    #6
    There are seven ED elements in the new 70-200. That's a lot. If its on the same level as the 14-24 and 24-70, it will be the new king of the 70-200 range.

    I think Nikon wanted to completely update the 14-200 range between the three zooms and make them all equivalent, along with hopefully ensuring that there will be full compatibility with all three current FX cameras (i.e. no more corner softness). It will be about $6000 to own all three new.
     
  7. John.B macrumors 601

    John.B

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2008
    Location:
    Holocene Epoch
    #7
    I didn't read it that their 18-200mm doesn't have zoom creep. I read it that it has a zoom lock switch you can set at minimum focal length, 18mm. Just like the Canon version. :)
     
  8. LittleCanonKid macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2008
    #8
    DPReview says that the new zooming mechanism combats zoom creep.

     
  9. FX120 macrumors 65816

    FX120

    Joined:
    May 18, 2007
    #9
    Probably nothing, currently they don't have a camera that directly competes with either.

    The D300s is a major disapointment IMO. I mean, come on, it's been a full two years and adding video and a SD slot is the best they can do for an update?

    My wishlist from Canon is an updated 24-70 f/2.8 (IS?) and the rumored 14-xx f/2.8. I wouldn't mind seeing a real D300 competitor either, like an updated D50 with a bigger viewfinder, better high ISO performance, and improved AF
     
  10. John.B macrumors 601

    John.B

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2008
    Location:
    Holocene Epoch
    #10
    "Combats." Umm, mkay.

    You do know that a lens that doesn't suffer from lens creep doesn't need a zoom lock switch?
     
  11. compuwar thread starter macrumors 601

    compuwar

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2006
    Location:
    Northern/Central VA
    #11
    Perhaps a reading comprehension class is in order? ;)

    Here's what the "More Info" site says if you followed my original link and chose the 18-200-

    (emphasis mine)
     
  12. John.B macrumors 601

    John.B

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2008
    Location:
    Holocene Epoch
    #12
    Well that's a little uncalled for. But if you want to be like that, fine.

    Here's what I said. If it didn't have some lens creep, it wouldn't need a switch to prevent lens creep. I bet the only difference is that the zoom ring has been stiffened up a bit.

    Still, its nice to see DPReview get the scoop on this since they've only been in the lens review business for, what, a little better than a year?
     
  13. peskaa macrumors 68020

    peskaa

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2008
    Location:
    London, UK
    #13
    Bit of a lame update to be honest.

    D300s - take a D300, add video (which has been poor on Nikon's so far) and an SD card slot. Few minor tweaks and that is all. For two years, this is pretty poor showing and also the RRP looks rather high. I wouldn't say it is enough to make it a "must buy" versus a 50D.

    D3000 - D40 with a bigger screen. Woo? Oh, and the AF system from a D5000. Clearly they didn't want to cannibalise D5000 sales, so the D3000 is a bit of a cripple.

    70-200 II - taken them long enough! It'll be a very good lens and possibly better than the Canon, until Canon drops a new version at the end of the year/2010 with their new IS II system that will once more blow Nikon's offering away. Leapfrogging is the name of the game as always.
     
  14. compuwar thread starter macrumors 601

    compuwar

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2006
    Location:
    Northern/Central VA
    #14
    The smiley is there because it's humor, but if you want to be like that, here's what you actually said that provoked the comment:

    Since Nikon's exact words were:

    I found it more than a little ironic that you didn't read it as "doesn't have zoom creep."

    FWIW, the lock switch is probably to insure no creep over time when pointed down instead of tilted down- given the lifespan of most lenses it's probably a good idea.
     
  15. compuwar thread starter macrumors 601

    compuwar

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2006
    Location:
    Northern/Central VA
    #15
    The "s" version cameras are pretty-much always minor tweaks going back at least to the F801/8008 series bodies in the early '90s- expecting any sort of major chance at an 's' version has no real basis in Nikon's design strategy- Nikon releases major features in new models and higher resolution in 'x' versions.

    They had two choices at the low end to protect the market share they've gained over Canon- drop the price on the D5000 or create a lower price-point model- I'm betting their sales figures for the D40/D60 series made a new model an obvious choice for a lower price point. Their other major strategy is to reuse parts as often as possible, and given the number of AF points has been an issue at the low end, it seems pretty logical to use the better module there.

    I dont' think calendar Q2 has been kind to Nikon Imaging- recession or overcutting production I'm not sure- but given their profitability against the same Canon unit for the last fiscal year despite the huge volume difference I can't see their strategy being too far off- especially at the DSLR end where they're making all the competitive gains.
     
  16. -hh macrumors 68020

    -hh

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2001
    Location:
    NJ Highlands, Earth
    #16

    The reason for Nikon's upgrade could very well be because Canon has apparently been working on an upgrade to their 70-200...last week (July 22, 2009) Canon had a press release on what they called a "Hybrid Image Stabilization System" (see **), and according to canonrumors.com, an updated EF 70-200 is rumored for release in September.


    ** - this newly developed hybrid compensates for both angular camera shake (rotational) and shift camera shake (linear), whereas existing IS technology only counteracted just angular (rotational). Reportedly, this change will be of greatest noticable benefitt in macro photography.

    So while Nikon will move up, apparently so too will be Canon. Time will tell if Nikon's advancedment manages to leapfrog all the way into the lead, or merely up to where Canon's lead "was".



    -hh
     
  17. peskaa macrumors 68020

    peskaa

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2008
    Location:
    London, UK
    #17
    Regardless, it's still a bit of a meh update, "history" or not. Nikon should have been looking at skipping an 's' camera and plumping straight for a D400. They should be competing, nay, out-competing their opponents, but the D300s does very little to forward this aim.

    If the D700x comes out as rumoured, it's going to do very little against the 5D Mark II.
     
  18. luminosity macrumors 65816

    luminosity

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2006
    Location:
    Arizona
    #18
    Nikon is a smaller company than Canon, and does not have the resources that Canon does. Yet it has managed to basically go toe to toe with Canon and even things up after falling behind earlier in the decade. Nikon had a tremendous update two years ago, when the D3, D300, 14-24 and 24-70 were released. That update was a huge success, and changed the landscape of photography to some extent.

    Last year, Nikon released the D700, which has fared very well and been a big success. I don't see how you can say that a D700x would "do very little" against the 5D Mark II, because the D700 is already doing well against it. The D700 has world-class autofocus performance, along with excellent build quality and incredible high-ISO results. Done well, the D700x could keep all those things and add high resolution to the mix. If I had a dollar for every Canon user's complaint about the 5D Mark II's shortcomings against the D700's strengths, I could take a few days off of work.

    Nikon does things in waves, with smaller updates along the way. You don't just update a major lens at the drop of a hat, nor a major camera. Nikon is undoubtably working on a full-fledged D400, but it will take more time. The new 70-200 has probably been in the works for at least a couple years.

    If the D700x comes out as rumoured, it's going to do very little against the 5D Mark II.


    The more I read this, the dumber it looks. Why would do it do very little? Nikon users would love to see a 700x, particularly if it's significantly less than the D3x. It might entice some Canon users who want the build quality and autofocus performance of the D700 but who don't want to leave the 5D Mark II's resolution to switch. Overall, I think it would do very well for those who have a use for it. The 5D Mark II is an excellent camera, but it has its weaknesses. The "x" to the D700's name would shore up arguably its biggest weakness, along with the subpar viewfinder coverage.
     
  19. peskaa macrumors 68020

    peskaa

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2008
    Location:
    London, UK
    #19
    Nikon is indeed a smaller company, but one that only produces cameras. Canon may be bigger, but they produce a lot more. If you put Canon's camera division against Nikon's then I'd imagine they're a lot closer in size. Yes the D3 was a "big" move for Nikon, but not one that changed the world (unlike, say, the 300D release) - it simply put Nikon back in some kind of competitive position rather than being behind the curve.


    Based on my experiences, the D700 isn't actually doing that well. A lot of my colleagues (those who shoot Nikon anyway) are going straight for the D3 over the D700, and picking up a D300/200 for their backup camera. The D3 doesn't cost *that* much more than the D700, but is a better package. When I'm out on shoots, I see very very few D700s around (much like the D3x, of which I've seen one outside of a studio) - if they were a run away success then I should be seeing a lot more of them.

    The rumoured D700x is going to add video and possibly a higher resolution sensor (although that goes against your statement that Nikon only issue "small" updates when they append a letter). The problem is, putting a bigger sensor on the camera will kill D3x and possibly D3 sales much like the 5DII has impacted seriously on 1DsIII sales (I most commonly see a 1DII/III paired with a 5D these days rather than a 1D/1Ds combo). Throw in the fact that Nikon will possibly keep the D700 around, the RRP on the D700x is going to be even more expensive - UK price I'd imagine around the £2200-£2500 mark which is directly comparable to a 5DII.

    As for the 5D Mark II's shortcomings, the only one I can vaguely come up with is the AF points being fairly central - but any photographer worth their salt can get round that easily. The ISO performance is spot on, the IQ is excellent, the cost is good compared to a D700 and generally they're great cameras to use. The 5DII's greater resolution has been pulling in sales - and the D700 on paper doesn't offer a convincing enough argument to go for one in a straight-up exchange. I see a lot of the 5D2s around these days, with probably 1/3-1/2 of Canon shooters I know using at least one (if not two).

    The D700x will indeed make up for some shortcomings of the D700 - but then the video quality may be sub-par as it has been on Nikon's dSLRs so far (the Jello effect) and the resolution increase may not happen. For current owners of a 5DII there'd be very little to push them into a switch (particularly due to cost of lenses etc) beyond a slightly better AF. It'll basically be that brand loyalty is the big difference (again), but with Canon's cheaper lenses and accessories then finance may play a part.

    Don't get me wrong, Nikon make good cameras (I use a D3x, D300, D200, D100 on a regular basis), but I think this update needed to go further to "take the lead" and the rumoured D700x update is simply going to achieve parity after nearly a year of Canon's dominance in the FF sector (D700/5D2).
     
  20. luminosity macrumors 65816

    luminosity

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2006
    Location:
    Arizona
    #20
    You responded to all kinds of points I didn't make. I didn't say the D700 is a runaway success, just that it's doing well (which I definitely believe it is). I also didn't say that the single letter updates to the cameras are always small. I said that Nikon makes smaller updates between its larger ones.

    As for the 5D Mark II's shortcomings, the only one I can vaguely come up with is the AF points being fairly central - but any photographer worth their salt can get round that easily

    If that was the case, you'd see the 5D Mark II at all a lot of sporting events, and I'd wager that just isn't the case at all. A major sports photographer is not going to se a 5D II when they can use either the 1Ds Mark III, 1D Mark III, D3 or D700.

    If all that you said was true, I wouldn't read tale after tale of Canon users dumping their equipment for Nikon, usually a D700 or D3. Obviously, there are some Nikon folks doing the same for a 5D II, but the river is running both ways at a strong clip. A lot of Canon shooters were and are dissatisfied with the autofocus not being significantly improved from the original 5D and with the mediocre build quality. You also can't conjure up a faster framerate, no matter how good a photographer you are. I'd say 3.9 is good enough for most uses, but not for a sports photographer.

    The D700 is simply the more versatile, able to shoot well in just about every situation, with resolution as its only weakness (and 12 MPs is plenty for all but the most specialized of shooters; people were doing great things a few years ago with half that). The 5D II has to stick to the sidelines when it comes to sports and fast action.

    For current owners of a 5DII there'd be very little to push them into a switch (particularly due to cost of lenses etc) beyond a slightly better AF

    So what do I make of each story that I see of 5D II owners switching to Nikon now, let alone in the future?

    but I think this update needed to go further to "take the lead" and the rumoured D700x update is simply going to achieve parity after nearly a year of Canon's dominance in the FF sector (D700/5D2).

    This "dominance" you speak of is imaginary. The three Nikon full frame cameras are every bit the Canon cameras equal, and have been selling just fine. There's no dominance for either brand, unless you want to talk about sports photography. In Athens, it was about an 80-20 split for Canon. In Beijing, it was close to 50-50 just four years later. I saw pictures from both events of the photographers, and there was as much black as there was white. You can thank the D3 for that.
     
  21. Cliff3 macrumors 65816

    Cliff3

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2007
    Location:
    SF Bay Area
    #21
    A freshened 70-200 is not at all surprising given the criticism of the current lens' performance on FX sensors. Any DX shooters looking for a tele-zoom can count on a flood of used lenses hitting the used market as pros and well-heeled FX shooters dump their old lenses in favor of the new one.

    The announcement of a freshened 18-200 was the only component of this announcement that caught me by surprise. It's too bad Nikon didn't spend the effort on a new version of the 24-120 instead. Most people buying a D700 body are reluctant to spend nearly $2k on a 24-70, but Nikon doesn't have any good alternatives at a consumer price point.

    Edit: On second thought, maybe Nikon felt they needed something a little less stale to offer in a kit with the D300s, and a freshened 24-120 will be released with the D700x. I guess we will see.
     
  22. peskaa macrumors 68020

    peskaa

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2008
    Location:
    London, UK
    #22
    If that was the case, you'd see the 5D Mark II at all a lot of sporting events, and I'd wager that just isn't the case at all. A major sports photographer is not going to se a 5D II when they can use either the 1Ds Mark III, 1D Mark III, D3 or D700.

    Sporting events will always be the high FPS, fast AF cameras - namely 1D3 and D3 series. It's a bit of a niche market, and you're right, if you need outright speed, you don't buy a 5DII (or a D300). I'd hesitate to add a D700 to that pile, as although the AF is good, its not at D3/1D level. Colleagues of mine who do shoot sports are all pro-level bodies, although they have the odd 5D/5DII/D700 in the bag for wides.

    If all that you said was true, I wouldn't read tale after tale of Canon users dumping their equipment for Nikon, usually a D700 or D3. Obviously, there are some Nikon folks doing the same for a 5D II, but the river is running both ways at a strong clip. A lot of Canon shooters were and are dissatisfied with the autofocus not being significantly improved from the original 5D and with the mediocre build quality. You also can't conjure up a faster framerate, no matter how good a photographer you are. I'd say 3.9 is good enough for most uses, but not for a sports photographer.

    Tales are never really accurate - internet postings are full of "I swapped for this that and the other", but you never hear from those who are happy. Once again, using the other photographers I know (FYI they are press photographers shooting for national papers, agencies and so forth) and can hence actually almost do a "poll" of users who don't post their kit preferences on the internet, the 5D Mark II is doing a roaring trade. Yes, there's been instances where they've gotten soaked in the rain and failed (but then the bloke who killed his pair knew it was likely to happen), but then there's cameras that have been around since launch, being treated like every other camera (ie: bashed about) and working fine. As for the FPS, 3.9 is enough for most instances, and when you need more, everybody I know has a 1D on the other shoulder.

    The D700 is simply the more versatile, able to shoot well in just about every situation, with resolution as its only weakness (and 12 MPs is plenty for all but the most specialized of shooters; people were doing great things a few years ago with half that). The 5D II has to stick to the sidelines when it comes to sports and fast action.

    So does the D700. If you've got a D3 and a D700, you'll pick up the D3. I'm not saying the D700 is a bad camera though - if it was a few hundred cheaper then I think it'd have a very convincing case. As we said earlier, 3.9fps is fast enough for basically everything except sports - my 5D2 is certainly getting a lot of use these days in a varied set of circumstances.

    So what do I make of each story that I see of 5D II owners switching to Nikon now, let alone in the future?

    Realise that there's loads of people not switching, people buying into the system new, or people going the other way round?

    This "dominance" you speak of is imaginary. The three Nikon full frame cameras are every bit the Canon cameras equal, and have been selling just fine. There's no dominance for either brand, unless you want to talk about sports photography. In Athens, it was about an 80-20 split for Canon. In Beijing, it was close to 50-50 just four years later. I saw pictures from both events of the photographers, and there was as much black as there was white. You can thank the D3 for that.

    This dominance existed up until the D3 launch, but still sways slightly to Canon. The D3 was great, but lacked resolution to combat the 1DsIII, which the D3x now does. The 5DII then offers that D3x high resolution, but at a third of the price. The D700, being a stripped down D3, sits a the bottom of the range. I personally think Canon are missing a trick by not having a cheaper, lower resolution FF camera (EOS 7D or something, 14-16mp etc) to reduce entry price to FF.

    As for the Olympics, you do realise Nikon loaned ********s of kit out to try and convince people to switch? I got sent a pair of D3s, bunch of lenses etc as a month "trial" at that time, despite the fact I wasn't attending. I'm still seeing a majority of white lenses, although the D3 certainly has slowed/stopped the "bleed" to white and given Nikon a damn good platform. I find those who remained with Nikon in the "bad" years are now happier with what they can get (ie: a good professional system) and the rate of switching between either systems has slowed. Most of the turnover seems to be amongst those amateurs who seem to have more money than sense (after all, £10-15k investments in lenses is far too much to just chuck).
     
  23. SLC Flyfishing Suspended

    SLC Flyfishing

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2007
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #23
    I don't understand what your bone to pick with Nikon is Peskka, but it's funny, I will acknowledge that!

    I think the existing Nikkor 70-200 is at least as good as the current Canon offering. I've tested it extensively on the D700, D3, and D3x now to find corners which were unsharp and have not been able to notice anything untoward. I do in all seriousness feel like this whole "edge performance" issues is blown way out of proportion. If the AF performance and MTF's are better (I haven't looked at the MTF charts side by side yes this morning) on the new version, plus the updated VR system, it will make the extra few hundred for the new version worth the price (if one is buying a 70-200 for the first time). I don't imagine that I'd be tempted to upgrade if I already had one in my hands, but since I've been planning on purchasing mine in about two weeks I may have to think about pre-ordering the new one instead.

    Either way, you're a Canon fan, we all get that. But I'm a life long Pentax shooter and recently decided to move into the Full Frame game. There was no competition in my mind between the Canon 5D (1 or 2) and the Nikon D700. Video on a DSLR is a waste of circuitry in my view, and the Nikons do everything considerably better and faster than the comparable Canons in my price range. The D700 has the same res as the old 5D, but much better AF and much better High ISO as well as a much better frame rate and in my opinion ergonomic feel. The D700 blows the new 5D out in AF and frame rate, and has slightly better High ISO. The old D300 was already a no brainer for me over the Canon 50D or 40D, better in every single way. And the D3 was a better sports camera than anything Canon could serve up in my eyes. The D3x is just flat out amazing for what it's designed to do.

    I noticed that Canon had cheaper lenses, and I noticed that they had largely the same offerings, but lens quality both from a user feel and build standpoint wasn't even close in my eyes. And so the choice was simple for me. Nikon all the way, the market has generally been agreeing with my opinion also, so there's got to be something to be said about that.

    Also, the resolution difference between the 5D2 and the D700 is pointless to me. I've been shooting at 10MP for 3 years now and have yet to push it's boundaries. 12 will be just fine, imagine what Canon could have done if they'd focused on bringing the 5D into the same league as the D700 in all other arenas of performance and build quality. They'd likely have a faster better high ISO performing camera if they'd limited the resolution to 16 or 18 MP.

    But one gimmick Canon has always leaned on is the "more megapixels means better pictures" mantra that uninformed people drone about on. I'm not saying that some people will make use of all that resolution, but the 5D/D700 are priced at a level that still attracts some of our more affluent novices. They'll print up to a 16x20 sometimes but generally it's an 8x10. Both those sizes fall easily within the realms of even an 8 MP cam so the extra resolution is really a gimmick to bring on more of the uninformed buyers in my eyes.

    I get that you like your 5D2, that's fantastic and I hope you do. But your postings are more than just a little fanboyish.

    That's coming from a Pentaxian with no Nikon or Canon loyalty whatsoever.

    SLC
     
  24. compuwar thread starter macrumors 601

    compuwar

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2006
    Location:
    Northern/Central VA
    #24
    First of all, the development timeframes don't allow a skip- the team working on the D400 isn't the team who worked on the D300s- and the D400 needs to have the same product lifetime that the D300 had, which means you'd need to be further ahead in sensor development than the short timeframe permits. The 's' models are what Nikon uses to extend the sales lifetime of their bodies, and they've been doing it for at least 18-19 years- given their share gains and profitability, they're doing it all very well- so your opinion aside I doubt there's much reason for them to change.

    First of all, Nikon makes a lot more than just cameras, including steppers for IC development, sporting/hunting optics, survey equipment, microscopes, scanners, eyeglass lenses- It's more accurate to say that Nikon is an optical company.

    Nikon's revenue for their camera division is stil significantly smaller than Canon's- though their profitability has been better for at least the last year or two. But Canon sells a lot more P&S cameras than Nikon (and for good reason, the Coolpix line has rarely- if ever been innovative or exceptional.)

    In terms of pure numbers, I'd say that the D40 and the 18-200 are the big movers for Niikon- the D40 because it gave them the DSLR market share lead at home which is a very important market for both companies, and the 18-200 because it drove their lens profitability up considerably- high margin, high price-point lens that sold like hotcakes- which is why they addressed the zoom creep, which was the biggest complaint about that particular lens.
     
  25. peskaa macrumors 68020

    peskaa

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2008
    Location:
    London, UK
    #25
    ;)
    My bone is that this update is a bit lame, and I was expecting more from them. Plus, if this update is lame, I'm expecting the D700x one to be just as bad.


    The current Nikkor 70-200 is good, but not fantastic on FX. Whilst its great they've updated it for FX and acknowledged the problems, the new cost (RRP of £2000, what the hell?) is rather high, and Canon are going to bounce past it fairly soon with IS II. Again, not enough - they needed to set themselves firmly into the lead, rather than simply nudge past (which always seems to be the way with both companies). If the D300s was a D400, then they'd be set.


    The D700 blows the new 5D out in AF and frame rate, and has slightly better High ISO. The old D300 was already a no brainer for me over the Canon 50D or 40D, better in every single way. And the D3 was a better sports camera than anything Canon could serve up in my eyes. The D3x is just flat out amazing for what it's designed to do.

    If you're buying a single camera, sure, you can look at it that way. No professional however uses a single camera. The 5D2's "slow" FPS (jesus, did nobody shoot when you had to manually wind?) isn't really a problem when you have 10FPS on your other body, and the AF only presents a problem during sports and again, with any fast moving subject I'd be reaching for a 1D.

    The D3x is great. Stupidly expensive but great. I know a lot of people who'd rather get a 1D3 and a 5D2 for the cost of not-quite a D3x (D3 and a D700 doesn't quite work though). Again, if you're single-camera'ing it, then go for it...but when it breaks, you're stuffed.


    Lenses? Canon have better tele's, Nikon better wides. Oh, and Canon have the f/4L series that Nikon seriously need to make a version of for the prosumer market. Canon work out a bit cheaper as well, but it is mainly down to investment - once you've spent a small fortune on glass, you need something incredibly convincing to change.



    Personally, I wish we'd all go back to film, manual advance and polaroid test shots. Hasselblad any day of the week.
     

Share This Page