- This topic is empty.
New Nikon
-
Other than 10.2mp, little seems to be known about it.
Ya very. I saw a reference to a DSLR compact on a site I came across.
Wonder if its an mp update to the D70 ? Still strange thoughWish Canon would get something like this..
I want to upgrade from the 300D, but an upgrade of 2MP ain’t worth it… And a full frame sensor ain’t gonna suit my 10-20 too well with the massive vignetting I get with my 35mm job.
This will be interesting for me now.
A decent Midrange 10MP and a few high end affordable lenses might make me stay with Nikon for a while.
Otherwise Nikons lens lineup is leaving a lot to be desired in the semi pro area so Id say Ill stick with my D50 till next summer and then swap bck to canon.“This will be interesting for me now.
A decent Midrange 10MP and a few high end affordable lenses might make me stay with Nikon for a while.
Otherwise Nikons lens lineup is leaving a lot to be desired in the semi pro area so Id say Ill stick with my D50 till next summer and then swap bck to canon.”Surely the D200 is a decent midrange camera?
The term’high-end’ and ‘affordable’ dont really go well together!Burt wrote:
Surely the D200 is a decent midrange camera?
The term’high-end’ and ‘affordable’ dont really go well together!Ok, so before anyone asks I am a Nikon user and I can’t ever see me jumping ship to Canon, purely because of the investment already made. But that said…
Midrange?? The D200 is all but a pro camera. In terms of functionality, quality and speed it’s pretty much up there with the D2X – it’s a cracking camera!
As for the comment made by masteroftherealm in terms of the “semi pro” range – I have to scoff at this a little. I guess it depends on your definition of mid range, but there are some of the Nikon range of lenses that have been adapted by Canon because they’re THAT good. Bot manufacturers have cheap, poor performing entry level lenses. For instance the 18-55 that comes with the D50 kit is a very poor lens. But when you get into mid range (again depending on your definition) I think the Nikon range excels. This is also backed up by the MTF figues (and yeah I know.. these are for people that like to brag about their lenses, more so than use them).
Or rephrase :)
The upper mid range.
Canons L range has greater scope and more compeditive pricing then the Equivalent Nikon range which is sparse on the ground IMO.
masteroftherealm wrote:
Or rephrase :)
The upper mid range.
Canons L range has greater scope and more compeditive pricing then the Equivalent Nikon range which is sparse on the ground IMO.
I wouldn’t necessarily disagree with that. Apologies for taking the topic off on a tangent
Hehe good good!!
In the 300-800euro bracket nikon has some good lenses I will say.
But Canons 500-1250euro glass is far superior I think.Yeah sory for tangenting this thread lol!
masteroftherealm wrote:
Hehe good good!!
In the 300-800euro bracket nikon has some good lenses I will say.
But Canons 500-1250euro glass is far superior I think.Yeah sory for tangenting this thread lol!
Looks like we’re going to have to agree to disagree again :shock:
Hehe ok. I agree to disagree unless someone makes a thread on Nikon vs Canon lenses at which point my fury shall be unleashed.
“But Canons 500-1250euro glass is far superior I think. “
Youve got to be joking right?
I assume youve heard of Nikon 12-24, 17-55 f2.8, 70-200F2.8 VR ………………………Canon make great cameras which they are incapable of supporting with their current lens line up, I know as I have some very expensive paper weights with L’s on them. Nikons curent offerings are a much more complete SYSTEM unless you think that having to spend 4 or 5 grand on a zeiss or leica wide angle to get anything other than the mush that a canon wide angle will give you is acceptable!! :shock:
Im saying that if you look at particular price points the canon offerings are superior to nikon at the price.
17-55 is the only lens Id choose over a Canon equivalent (17-40L).
Canons 10-22 is far from mush in my experience man!!
And Im not disputing their Cameras are kicking canons ass.
But lenses, IMO not so much so.“Im saying that if you look at particular price points the canon offerings are superior to nikon at the price.
17-55 is the only lens Id choose over a Canon equivalent (17-40L).
Canons 10-22 is far from mush in my experience man!!
And Im not disputing their Cameras are kicking canons ass.
But lenses, IMO not so much so”
Unfortunately a canon 10-22 is of zero use to Canon users who bought into their Full Frame sensor hype. From personal experience the 16- 35 f2.8 is a huge dissapointment on a full frame body. Canon users have been screaming for a decent wide angle for years and Canon seem to be totally unresponsive.
I have tested the nikon 17-55 on a d2x (canon equivalent is 28-70 not 17-40) and it it is definitely superior to my 28-70 on my1DS2. Canons current lenses are old technology compared to Nikons which have been designed for their digital cameras rather than film.
I disregard your reference to pricepoint comparisons as there is no good wideangle for canon full frame body to compare anything too.
My advice would be to stick with Nikon!
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
