Canon to Nikon

[-MasterChief-]

now that i have your attention ... ive been seeing a lot of threads about switching from Nikon to Canon ... anybody here who knows somebody who switched from Canon to Nikon? seems to me that Nikon makes some serious stuff, not that id switch, but just wondering ... thanks in advance!

[Seefutlung]

My experience is that like equipment will deliver a like product. A mid range Nikon will deliver an image equal to a mid range Canon. Likewise for lenses ... a $1500 Pro level Nikkor lens is equal to a $1500 pro level Canon lens. All cameras have their individual pros and cons, but collectively, like equipment will deliver similar results. In the hands of a pro, one will not be able to distinguish or identify if an image was taken with a Nikon or a Canon of similar level. (For my tastes, Nikon makes a better looking camera, sexier if you would ... but that's just moi ...)

[picturecrazy]

I'm sure there's plenty, you just won't find them on these forums.

I don't know of any, personally.
My best friend is a nikon shooter, and he is constantly jealous of my lenses and the images my setup pumps out. He's considered switching for about .005 of a second before he changed his mind back again. He says he can't get the same image quality out of his comparable equipment. I wouldn't know, don't know a thing about nikon....

BUT.... you may have a point there. The only reason I can see for someone to switch to canon is the Full Frame factor.
I've heard mixed and mediocre reviews of the kodak FF nikkor-mount cameras...

[-MasterChief-]

good point picturecrazy, this is after all, a Canon Forum, lol!

Seefutlung, very well said. and i agree that Nikon makes "sexier" bodies. ;)

[Toogy]

I love the images I get with Canon equipment, but I will say this..... I think Nikon make better cameras.... at least ergonimically.
If you get a chance, hold a D200 (my friend has one) That is a SLICK camera. So much nicer feeling than my 30D/20D.
But I like the way my images look from my Canon gear better.

[pfogle]

Well, I've always been Canon for AF, tho' I was a Nikon user back in the MF days.

I just bought my son his first DSLR - got him a D70, as he already had a Nikon zoom lens, and I didn't really want him borrowing mine :)

[aparmley]

I heard someone make an interesting point somewhere else

Sony makes Nikon's sensors - now that they've[Sony] entered the DSLR market - whats going happen? ? ? Makes you wonder.

[nc5p]

Nikon doesn't make full frame cameras. That is primary reason I went with Canon and I owned Nikon equipment for 25 years. Canon makes full frame, 1.3x, and 1.6x cameras to cover nearly every DSLR need. I like that approach better. Also, Canon seems better capable of delivering product. Nikon creates shortages of their products to boost buying hysteria. They are just getting caught up with D200 supply and several popular lenses are backordered for months.

Doug

[Mayfly]

Well being a former Nikon user for the last 15 year or so I would have to say that there bodies are designed much nicer and I tend to like there interface a little better. Aside from that at this point in the digital race, Canon has seemed to get a leg up by offering both Full Frame and cropped. Not only that Canon has always in my opinion won out on AF performance and their optics are slightly better no question. At this current point in Image Quality Canon would have to win again. Even Nikons D2X falls slightly behind in IQ when compared to the 5D and the 1DS MII. Still a great camera though.

[Seefutlung]

Well, I've always been Canon for AF, tho' I was a Nikon user back in the MF days.

I just bought my son his first DSLR - got him a D70, as he already had a Nikon zoom lens, and I didn't really want him borrowing mine :)

lol- I bought my daughter an XT so she could use my lenses.

[saravrose]

I know one guy.. who's dad is a pro shooter... he had himself a nice but somewhat moderate kit built up. when his dad offered him some work as a second shooter/assistant and use of his kit, (happened to be Nikon but, as I heard it only because that's what he has used for over a decade).. He sold off his kit because he didn't think he would need it.. I should probably add that the same guy loves the Postprocess and has next to no interest in in actually shooting and admitted to me that he never shoots unless he's getting paid so didn't really have any reason to keep his own kit..

sari

[basroil]

I heard someone make an interesting point somewhere else

Sony makes Nikon's sensors - now that they've[Sony] entered the DSLR market - whats going happen? ? ? Makes you wonder.

absolutely nothing... hell, canon makes the ccd sensors used in sony's camcorders, but you still see sony selling just as many camcorders as before...

as for nikon vs canon, nikon has more exotic lenses availiable, and many more mount options. canon has fewer lenses, but at a more reasonable price (6500 is cheap for 400 f2.8 compared to nikon's 7999 for a 400 f2.8 W/O IS), and it has only two mount options. more/less but cheaper is main difference in the lenses. as for bodies, canon is years ahead of nikon. a nikon in iso100 is great, but once you get down to iso3200, forget about that damn ccd sensor doing anything correctly. the lower pixel density of the canon lenses also improves appearent sharpness a bit.

say what you want about the lenses, but the bodies definately goes to canon due to better performance in horrible conditions...

quick edit: for anyone who uses raws and doesn't have photoshop cs, nikon does not ship something equivilent to DPP with it's camera. instead, it is there to buy for $150 if you want it. just a little side note incase people like to use raws

[MrChad]

My buddy had a D30 and some Tamron glass. He was going to get a 30D to finally upgrade. But since he was also going to buy a full new kit of lenses too I urged him to also look at the Nikon gear.

He really liked the D200 so he went Nikon and got a full set of f2.8 Nikkor glass as well. For the money I think he made the right call. He didn't have a kit full of expensive glass and he wanted the highest resolution-pro feel/build for the money he had set aside.

I don't think I could blame him, I really like the build of the D200. It's much more like a Pro APS-C then the 30D IMO.

Comparing his Nikkor glass to my L's I surely can't pixel peep a major difference.

I'm not going to sell my glass for Nikkors anytime soon. But if I was buying from scratch I see no reason to not look at Nikon. I'm sure by the time my buddy and I can afford a FF digital Nikon will have one any how :P

[racketman]

I use a D70s at work and reckon it feels better in the hand than my 20D. I dont like its interface and little things like the dioptre adjustment. Anyone starting off with a mid priced dslr would surely have to consider the d20O.

[-MasterChief-]

I'm sure by the time my buddy and I can afford a FF digital Nikon will have one any how :P

sorry to burst your bubble Chad, but Nikon cant go FF -- not without re-engineering a whole new set of lenses. the problem is that on a Nikon body, the opening at which you attach the lenses is too small (please correct me if im wrong on this). so even if Nikon (or Sony) was able to make a full frame CCD sensor, it will create massive amount vignetting on the image.

[justinmob]

I just got back from Disneyland and one of the Disney photographers (the ones that ask if they can take your picture as you enter the park) offered to take a pic of our group using my 20d. After she took a couple of shots, she handed me my camera and said she liked my camera more than the Nikon D70 she has to use at work. I just smiled.

[Lord_Malone]

now that i have your attention ... ive been seeing a lot of threads about switching from Nikon to Canon ... anybody here who knows somebody who switched from Canon to Nikon? seems to me that Nikon makes some serious stuff, not that id switch, but just wondering ... thanks in advance!

http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=119725

[Seefutlung]

I just got back from Disneyland and one of the Disney photographers (the ones that ask if they can take your picture as you enter the park) offered to take a pic of our group using my 20d. After she took a couple of shots, she handed me my camera and said she liked my camera more than the Nikon D70 she has to use at work. I just smiled.

There you go .. the Disney "Profesional" has settled this for all time ...

Canon wins ...
Nikons are for losers

[jauiek]

I recently "switched" to Canon. However, I still really enjoy my D70 and get great shots from it and still use it. No offense intended but I personally don't think it means a whole lot to say my friend has been shooting a Nikon film camera for 30 years and has now switched to a Canon digital camera. We are talking film verses digital I don't really think this means a whole lot...Like almost comparing apples to oranges. Now switching from a Nikon film camera to a Canon film camera that is a better more accurate comparision. But if we are talking ergonomics then maybe a film camera can be compared to a digital camera. However there are many more buttons/dials on digital cameras for the most part . Personally for me I don't think there is as drastic of a difference between two film bodies of different brands as there is with digital cameras.

I really enjoy my 20d but after having it I am not as blown away as I thought. This may contradict my earlier comment a bit but the difference isn't crazy. The 20d has its strengths over my d70 and I totally consider it a better camera. Now that I have been using my Canon I ask myself if maybe I should have just got a D200 and avoided introducing a new system and hurting myself financially...maybe my curiousity got the best of me and I just like trying new things...I dunno.

[cjm]

I dont really have any loyalty to Canon. Its a camera, it works so I will buy it. If they start really dumbing down their products I will sell all my gear and go to one of the other 2 camera makers (Nikon or Olympus). Don't get me wrong, so far and for the last 6 years I have loved Canon. Another bonus for Canon is if you buy used gear, Canon used gear is common and cheap. Nikon gear is harder to come by and is more expensive it seems (but I know nothing about Nikon prices).

I've considered trying Nikon, but after finding this board, that thought disappeared and when I upgraded my SLR to dSLR I went Canon all the way.

[jsimon724]

ROEDDEL,
They've been using those same lenses on film cameras for years, no reason for vignetting with a FF sensor.
Jim

[grego]

When the D200 came out, some people from Canon jumped to Nikon. It's a good camera, as I have opportunities to use it at my newspaper. Defintely Nikon's version of the 30D(and a lot of the 20D). It'll deliever well. It won't do as well with high ISO, but it will deliever better "out of the camera (before post processing)" photos. There's no real better, except in the 1.3 crop and full frame since Nikon has not gone there yet.

[MrChad]

sorry to burst your bubble Chad, but Nikon cant go FF -- not without re-engineering a whole new set of lenses. the problem is that on a Nikon body, the opening at which you attach the lenses is too small (please correct me if im wrong on this). so even if Nikon (or Sony) was able to make a full frame CCD sensor, it will create massive amount vignetting on the image.

http://mcnamara.popphoto.com/photos/uncategorized/460_vs_istdl_1.jpg

really wasn't this FF?

Nikon in the short term states corner light fall off as an issue for them to not produce a FF sensor. It could be total BS, but we have a fair share of 5D owners that gripe about this.

When an affordable FF sensor is available for Nikon to purchase I'm sure we will see a FF Nikon DSLR.

Nikon doesn't yet sell a FF body, but they don't price their Camera's to Canon's FF prices either so it's a give and take IMO.

I've always found it appealing that old Nikkor lenses with apperture rings will function on many of their DSLR just like the old days.

Would anyone pay for a Rebel FD? (a Rebel converted to work, AF point signal and meter with all the old FD lenses like new, that would be kind of cool IMO.)

The D200 is neat in that for a reasonable price, should you own old Manual Nikkor lenses they will work just fine, no converted needed.

[rabidcow]

I use a D70s at work and reckon it feels better in the hand than my 20D.

Ugh....I use the D70s for environmental shoots (outdoor seniors) and I find that it feels like a plastic toy when compared to my 20D with grip.

The SB600 and SB800 both seem to blow out the image in ttl and bttl regardless of the environment. This might be a simple lack of knowledge regarding Nikon metering on my behalf, but I really can't say for certain.

The D2X feels fine in my hands, I use this in the studio, actually, it is a pretty meaty camera, but I find the ergonomics lacking. Having said that, remember that I am a Canon man and have been on Canon DSLR bodies for 5 years now. Ergonomics are a matter of preference in this matter.

Regardless of model, Nikons seem to capture images with too much blue in them. On the other end, Canon cameras seem to be too warm. Set either brand on flash WB with monolights, powerlights, or any other studio lights, they are both pretty close to true white.

The battle rages on. And it will so long as there are two beefy competitors out there duking it out for top of the mountain. I judge no one for thier choice in equiment, we are all photographers with a passion, regardless of our brand loyalty.

[grego]

When an affordable FF sensor is available for Nikon to purchase I'm sure we will see a FF Nikon DSLR.

Nikon doesn't yet sell a FF body, but they don't price their Camera's to Canon's FF prices either so it's a give and take IMO.


But they do price against the 1D series and have D2H and d2X series that go up against each other. They do lose in the crop factor in every situation on the higher end cameras. And they sort of price against the 5D/1Ds with the D2x(the high resolution side of it).

[cjm]

Yeah those Kodak Nikon and Canon's sure were way over priced. Even though they were light years ahead when the released them in the mid to late 90's.

[justinmob]

There you go .. the Disney "Profesional" has settled this for all time ...

Canon wins ...
Nikons are for losers

I never said Nikon users are losers but I guess they are sensitive. :rolleyes:

[basroil]

sorry to burst your bubble Chad, but Nikon cant go FF -- not without re-engineering a whole new set of lenses. the problem is that on a Nikon body, the opening at which you attach the lenses is too small (please correct me if im wrong on this). so even if Nikon (or Sony) was able to make a full frame CCD sensor, it will create massive amount vignetting on the image.

basically, you mean that an ef-s lens won't work on a 5d. the good nikkors are meant for film cameras, just like good ef lenses are meant for full frame/film. nikon has two lines (if i remember correctly from research way back before i got my xt) of digital only lenses, and 4 lines of film/digital lenses. the 70-200 nikkor, 300/400/600 are all film lenses that can be used on the digital bodies. canon has a very similar concept with the ef vs ef-s system. ef-s is only for 1.6 crop bodies, and ef is for all cameras. the main problem is in making an actual full frame sensor. ccd's tend to produce more heat and take more energy the larger they are. and of course, the more of a waffer you have to use for a ccd, the more expensive it is, hence the reletively small 1.5 crop (only 44% the size of a full frame sensor)

i have a friend that had one of the first kodak digitals from way back in 93. it took a 2mb pcmia card for memory, and had vga resolution...

[-MasterChief-]

ROEDDEL,
They've been using those same lenses on film cameras for years, no reason for vignetting with a FF sensor.
Jim

good point Jim, now you burst my bubble! lol! :D

[i2iSTUDIOS]

I switched from the 20D to the D200

I like the ergonomics of the D200. I like the way the settings changed and I like the feel and weight of the D200. Since then I have gotten the D70s as a 2nd body and it's right.

I think the 20D is a fantastic camera, and the canon lenses are great. I am just used to the Nikon system more is all.

[Seefutlung]

I never said Nikon users are losers but I guess they are sensitive. :rolleyes:

I never said you said Nikons are losers ... I said that. Hey, it's all in fun. I used to a press photog back in the film days ... my Nikons never failed me on an assignment. I love the old mechanical F series.

[DocFrankenstein]

I heard the flashes are better with noink. Egronomics are a matter of getting used to.

It's all the same IMO.

Noink's wide angle primes are much better AFAIK, but I don't like how they don't have an option for FF digital.

[YosemiteJunkie]

Well, I've always been Canon for AF, tho' I was a Nikon user back in the MF days.
My first thought when I saw the subject line was "BLASMOPHOUS". Then you reminded me that in my earlier years my first SLR was a Pentax Asahi back in 1971 if I remember correct. (am I aging myself here :confused: )

[pknight]

But I like the way my images look from my Canon gear better.

"Image is everything"

[BDM]

sorry to burst your bubble Chad, but Nikon cant go FF -- not without re-engineering a whole new set of lenses. the problem is that on a Nikon body, the opening at which you attach the lenses is too small (please correct me if im wrong on this). so even if Nikon (or Sony) was able to make a full frame CCD sensor, it will create massive amount vignetting on the image.

I sincerely doubt this. The Nikon lens mount has been standard for many years going back to its first SLF the model F. All models had no troublle covering a full 35mm film frame. I can't imagine that a digital sensor would be substantially different.

Bruce

[gcobb]

I've always thought Nikon was like the Cadillac of cameras and had superior optics. They may not now but from how I was taught they were top of the line at one point. I guess it's like a Ford/Chevrolet thing.

[MrChad]

But they do price against the 1D series and have D2H and d2X series that go up against each other. They do lose in the crop factor in every situation on the higher end cameras. And they sort of price against the 5D/1Ds with the D2x(the high resolution side of it).

They sort of price against, but not really.

The D200 is the consumer bargain IMO at $1600 ish, I'd love to see a 1.6x Canon with 1D esk build and features. Heck, a 1.6x digital version of the Eos 3 would rock. I miss the custom functions of my old film bodies.

Nikon also has always had metering options out the yang too.

The D2 series while priced at pro levels isn't quite 1Ds full frame pricey either. The Nikon's are priced accordingly I think.

[stumpy]

I had a play with my friends D2X at the weekend - it feels fantastic, even compared to a 1 series - everything fell perfectly under my fingers. That said, ever since my Olympus OM-2 i learnt on - i'm a canon fan and given the choice between a D2 and a 1D - its the 1D every time

[Woolburr]

I've always thought Nikon was like the Cadillac of cameras and had superior optics. They may not now but from how I was taught they were top of the line at one point. I guess it's like a Ford/Chevrolet thing.

I guess if brand x were a caddy...that would make Canon a Ferrari. I don't know how many times I've heard the N*k*n is supreme crap over the years. I've always tried to keep an open mind....even tried a brand x or two from the pool just to see. Never much cared for N*k*n ergonomics and never saw any vast difference in the optics or optical quality. The reality of it is very much like your Ford/Chevy analogy, it all boils down to personal preference. Canon has taken care of me for the past 32 years or so....and probably will for the next 32.

[lakiluno]

I've always found it appealing that old Nikkor lenses with apperture rings will function on many of their DSLR just like the old days.

Would anyone pay for a Rebel FD? (a Rebel converted to work, AF point signal and meter with all the old FD lenses like new, that would be kind of cool IMO.)


Umm..I use 3 different Nikon lenses on my 350D. In fact, the EOS system will meter with old Nikon lenses, while the Nikon AF system is unable to meter with the older lenses, so in fact, EOS works better with manual nikons than Nikon!

You can also use modern AF nikons on a Canon, but they can't have the aperture changed :(

[DocFrankenstein]

Would anyone pay for a Rebel FD? (a Rebel converted to work, AF point signal and meter with all the old FD lenses like new, that would be kind of cool IMO.)
I'd pay for a DSLR with a universal mount and a split screen.

[nc5p]

Umm..I use 3 different Nikon lenses on my 350D. In fact, the EOS system will meter with old Nikon lenses, while the Nikon AF system is unable to meter with the older lenses, so in fact, EOS works better with manual nikons than Nikon!

You can also use modern AF nikons on a Canon, but they can't have the aperture changed
To clarify these statements, the D200 can be programmed to meter older lenses. The D70, D50, etc. cannot. The "modern" AF nikons he is referring to are the "G" series that have no aperture ring. Other series lenses you can manually set the aperture. Somewhere on the web there are lens tests on a 1DsMKII body with the 17-35 2.8 AF-S Nikkor lens being compared to Canon's 16-35 and 17-40. You can mount almost any lens on a Canon with just an adapter ring!

Doug

[steved110]

When I was shoppping for my first brand new SLR bought with my own money, I knew I wanted an AF camera, and the choice was Minolta Dynax or Canon Eos. At that time (1994) nikon was pretty much manual only, and AF was considered a toy, not meant for serious phtography. The reputation Nikon had then was unassailably the best, all the pro photojournalists used nikon, and I felt at the time that it was out of my reach, rightly or wrongly.

To tell the truth, I can no longer remember why I chose Eos over dynax - probably it was something as simple as how they looked - i remember dynax cameras being big and angular and sort of soviet -looking - but considering the way things have worked out - phew, close call! Tho the new sony alpha looks interesting, and they have apparently set the goal of becoming the no 2 DSLR seller by 2008, and have about 20 lenses to launch later this year.

IMO the competition they will offer to nikon and canon can only be good news for everybody.

[grego]

They sort of price against, but not really.

The D200 is the consumer bargain IMO at $1600 ish, I'd love to see a 1.6x Canon with 1D esk build and features. Heck, a 1.6x digital version of the Eos 3 would rock. I miss the custom functions of my old film bodies.

Nikon also has always had metering options out the yang too.

The D2 series while priced at pro levels isn't quite 1Ds full frame pricey either. The Nikon's are priced accordingly I think.

Well the 30D is what matches up with the D200 in terms of features. Finally the 30D put spot metering and 1/3 ISO. The d200 is priced pretty well. I agree there.

The D2h, is defintely hard to find these days because it just isn't cutting it. The D2X and D2Xs, are basically priced around the 1DMKII. So I don't really see how they are priced accordinly unless they are goin up against the 1D series.

I would have to agree that Canon cheats out people on their lower end models though, which does suck. 30D is the first big jump they've made.

[Aschlaman@comcast.net]

I am a switch hitter. I use both Nikon and Canon. I shot Nikon for years until two years when I got angry because they had been slow to come up with a decent replacement for the D100.
I picked up a 20D and a 35mm f1.4L a 24-70 f2.8L a 70-200 f2.8L and a 300mm f4 L IS. I was hooked. The L lenses are superb. Nikon has nothing like the 35mm f1.4 and some months back I bought the 5D.
I can't say I have completely let go of Nikon. I have lots of lenses and I am thinking of a D200.
I like them both. Nikon bodies seem to be a little more stout. Canon has a better lens selection.

Art Schlaman

[MrChad]

Well the 30D is what matches up with the D200 in terms of features. Finally the 30D put spot metering and 1/3 ISO. The d200 is priced pretty well. I agree there.

The D2h, is defintely hard to find these days because it just isn't cutting it. The D2X and D2Xs, are basically priced around the 1DMKII. So I don't really see how they are priced accordinly unless they are goin up against the 1D series.

I would have to agree that Canon cheats out people on their lower end models though, which does suck. 30D is the first big jump they've made.

I'd still say the D200 has a tad edge on the 30D, given the larger array of custom functions and the weather sealed shell. The D200 is about as pro a body as I would need, as a gear head the D200 would be my pick for best bang body.

The 1D mII is still a crop body 1.3x vs. Nikon's 1.5x D2x, but the D2's have always been built like tanks so for the money both are top notch.

I'll concede Nikon has nothing to compete with the 1Ds, but then again I don't have a prayer of affording a 1Ds. I'd sooner use the money to buy a new car.

The real trump card is Canon's 5D which is FF, but at $3000-ish for something with 30D/20D feature set is it worth it. I'd say so, but I think I'll wait 5 years for the $1500 version :)

But if I had a slew of Nikkor glass, the D200 is nice enough I wouldn't even bother looking at switching to Canon. And a lot of folks on here shoot a bunch of 3rd party glass in that case I might still lean toward the D200.

[grego]

I'd still say the D200 has a tad edge on the 30D, given the larger array of custom functions and the weather sealed shell. The D200 is about as pro a body as I would need, as a gear head the D200 would be my pick for best bang body.

The 1D mII is still a crop body 1.3x vs. Nikon's 1.5x D2x, but the D2's have always been built like tanks so for the money both are top notch.

I'll concede Nikon has nothing to compete with the 1Ds, but then again I don't have a prayer of affording a 1Ds. I'd sooner use the money to buy a new car.

The real trump card is Canon's 5D which is FF, but at $3000-ish for something with 30D/20D feature set is it worth it. I'd say so, but I think I'll wait 5 years for the $1500 version :)

But if I had a slew of Nikkor glass, the D200 is nice enough I wouldn't even bother looking at switching to Canon. And a lot of folks on here shoot a bunch of 3rd party glass in that case I might still lean toward the D200.

Yeah, i'd say the D200 features outdo the 30D's. I don't disagree there. Nikon cameras win on the feature edge for anything in the non-1D series cameras(and some of 5D features)

I never said the 1D series wasn't a cropped camera, but the crop is only a small piece of what makes the 1D series great. Nothing has topped the 1D series yet nor the 1D series. Of course the Nikon D2x or D2Xs isn't complete crap of course.

The 5D seems like the 20D/30D, maybe because of menu wise and since it says 3fps. But it's got a way bigger buffer. It renders better DOF(bokeh from the actual lens), better ISO, has good AF(can work fine in sports). It's near 2500 depending on if you include the rebate or so.

of course that depends on how much you value those features and full frame. It was made to be a pro camera. But I'm sure they'll learn from some of their things and improve it a little bit more for the next version.

[DocFrankenstein]

Nikon has nothing like the 35mm f1.4
Huh?
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=36949&is=GREY&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation

[MrChad]

Huh?
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=36949&is=GREY&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation

I can only assume he means AF lens. The lack of a unified standard amoung Nikkor glass was really my only complaint with their lenses. But Nikon never dumped you either like Canon did with EOS from FD switch in the late 80's.

All Canon EF (EF-S) lenses are near identical. A good many have ring type USM standard, especially in the L line. This really looks good today in hind site, but was hard to swallow in the 80's early 90's.

When you start looking at the older Nikkor glass like the 80-200mm f/2.8 it's a beautiful Nikkor but it doesn't have the silent wave AF like the 70-200mm VR. That was my only gripe against Nikon. When cross shopping it was harder to find great matched pairing of lenses like the Canon 24-70/70-200 f2.8 kit.

Some lenses had aperture rings, some didn't, silent wave drive wasn't standard, some lenses used the older AF type.

You can view this as a plus or a minus, Nikon usually never updates a lens that's what's nice about Canon. The down side is, it seems like Canon is always updating a lens and with that so to the price often by hundreds of dollars.

That's why the D200 was so exceptional, it was a DSLR (for a low price vs. D2(?)) that would pretty much use any Nikkor you had in the closet for say your old F body film days.

[gregjp48]

I use a D70s at work and reckon it feels better in the hand than my 20D. I dont like its interface and little things like the dioptre adjustment. Anyone starting off with a mid priced dslr would surely have to consider the d20O.

I think completely the opposite

Maybe it's what I'm used to, but the d70 (and d50) feel extremely boxy in my hands, and too small (and I have small hands)

I like the 20d's grip, and then also I love the old camera grips when the FD mount was still around (but prior to the T** series). Now those people knew where to put a DOF preview button

[gregjp48]

sorry to burst your bubble Chad, but Nikon cant go FF -- not without re-engineering a whole new set of lenses. the problem is that on a Nikon body, the opening at which you attach the lenses is too small (please correct me if im wrong on this). so even if Nikon (or Sony) was able to make a full frame CCD sensor, it will create massive amount vignetting on the image.

I don't believe that's true, since Nikon used the same F mount on 35mm film, no? I know the make-up of the sensor is curved instead of flat, but even so, the lens should be able to cover the same area.

But what is true is everyone who invested in DX glass (which is a large part of Nikon's lens line up) would not be able to use them on the FF body. So they'd ether have to buy all new glass, or stay with APS-C.

Plus-- Nikon already said stubbornly: WE ARE NOT GOING FULL FRAME.

And they'd have to rely on whoever they bought there sensors from to manufacture it and make it work, and whoever that was (probably still Sony) could take extreme advantage of Nikon price wise.

[rjcanon]

The company I work for uses N****. Everything from d70s to d2x so I am fairly aware of the differences. It seems that the Noinks slot inbetween what would be there Canon counterparts. The D200 is a great camera but its IQ seems to fall flat compared to my 20D especially in Higher ISOs. The sensor is just disapointing above ISO 400. That said, it feels great and all these cameras were film the d200 would be far ahead of the 20d & 30d. I also really like the feel of the D2H and D2X but I am consistantly unimpressed by the IQ of these "top of the line" cameras.