Canon/Nikon

[skydog]

Sorry guys, I'm sure this has been discussed, but I haven't been on line for quite some time. If there is a thread that contains this discussion then please sent me to it. Currently, I own a Canon 30D with numerous Canon L lenses (400 2.8, 300 2.8, 70/200 2.8, 24/70 2,8, 16/35 2.8). My approach has been to invest in good glass and then by the camera. My primary focus is high school sports, but I do do some portraits, weddings and commercial. Sooo, for the past two years I have been saving for the Mark IIN replacement. As we all know, we have seen major reporting issues with the auto focusing features of this camera. I'm still not sure from what I've read if the problem has been resolved. I also thought I could buy a 40D for the short term (12-18 months) to see how it all unfolds. Some friends say they have have been disappointed in the 40D for many of the same reasons. Then I continue to read the rave reviews of the D300 Nikon...not only did they appear to come out with more features (good iso, speed, mpix, etc), but also (per reports) a reliable/dependable product. What is the hell is going on with Canon? It seems that Nikon is kicking some ass and I have seen nothing from Canon to respond to what I consider a real crisis if they don't get their act together. Now I'm invested in too much glass to quickly convert. Am I wrong in my thinking? Do you think the 40D is superb to the 30D? Can I depend on getting "a good one" if I make a purchase? Thoughts on the current MarkIII.

[sapearl]

Both manufacturers have had issues and innovations over the years. They keep one-upping each other - to our benefit - and I don't see that ending any time soon.

You have a TREMENDOUS amount invested in good glass IMHO. Unless cost is no object, you'd be taking a pretty big hit to switch over, not to mention the potential aggravation of the sales process. I do not own the MarkIII and don't know much about it, but it was my understanding that the major issues have been resolved. And even if you get one that still has some problems, they know how to take care of it now.

Your money, your choice ;). Good luck with your decision - and welcome to the forum.

[skydog]

I agree...I have too much invested in glass...I just hope Canon gets it back together...in the mean time (I would like a second camera but it is not urgent), I don't know if I should sit or buy a 40D or go forward for the Mark III. For those of you that own...is there a big difference in image quality from such an upgrade?

[Tom W]

I agree...I have too much invested in glass...I just hope Canon gets it back together...in the mean time (I would like a second camera but it is not urgent), I don't know if I should sit or buy a 40D or go forward for the Mark III. For those of you that own...is there a big difference in image quality from such an upgrade?

I'll be able to let you know in a week or so. Just ordered the Mk III after much internal debate for the last several months. I believe (and will soon know for certain) that the newer 'blue dot' bodies don't share the issues that some of the earlier bodies have/had.

The 40D is no slouch - it has excellent low-light AF, a fast frame rate, and a boatload of features. In terms of functionality, it's an improvement on the 30D.

[sapearl]

Tom, I will be an optimist to my fellow Ohioan :D.

Canon has too much riding on this. The reputation hiccuped slightly with the initial problems and they can't afford any continuing problems or even the preception of them. I will take the position that your new body will be just fine.

...... I believe (and will soon know for certain) that the newer 'blue dot' bodies don't share the issues that some of the earlier bodies have/had.......

[skydog]

Three of my friends (one bought a Mark III, and the other two bought 40D last fall) have sent their cameras back to Canon (the Mark and one 40D twice). That's why I have been sitting on the fence..I've got the urge, but scared I will end up with the same problems.

[sapearl]

Ouch - sorry to hear that. I haven't bought any of those models myself, but purchased a 5D 2 years ago, another one year ago.... so far, knock on wood, fine little machines.

Three of my friends (one bought a Mark III, and the other two bought 40D last fall) have sent their cameras back to Canon (the Mark and one 40D twice). That's why I have been sitting on the fence..I've got the urge, but scared I will end up with the same problems.

[skydog]

issue have been focus...

[P51Mstg]

I spent this past Thursday with one of Canon's Regional Reps. Their products work, assuming you actually know how to use one (how to properly hold it and use real techniques like "backfocusing")...... There are no current problems with the Mark III, I've had one for over 6 months and it was in the affected range and it worked fine. However I did send it in to get it fixed, there was no change in the performance................. I shoot a lot and also bought a 1Ds Mark III to go with the others, it should be in by the time I get back home.

Now to your specific problem...............

I see you have a lot of L Glass. A rough guess is that you have about $15,000 worth of glass to shoot high school sports, etc. I can imagine how hard it must be to hold that 400 2.8 since it weighs about 12 pounds by itself, and is a LOT bigger than the 600mm. When you have a 30D on it you can't hardly hang onto it........

Your post says you've been saving for "2 years" for the Mark IIN replacement, which has been out for almost a year now. I mean if you have been saving for 2 years for a body (Mark III) that only costs $4500 at street, it doesn't make sense that you have so much in the way of expensive lenses......... I mean you must have spent 6 + years saving up for all of them or way longer........ You don't even list any "kit lenses" or other stuff like that.............

If you have a such a large investment, it shouldn't be really hard to figure out if you can justify a 40D body which is maybe a $1000 or so. Even less when you unload the 30D, maybe you have to fork out an additional $500.

Something isn't right here. I figure there is no way that you have all those lenses.... I know at least 125 real professional photographers who were at the symposium this past week, and not one of them had a 400 2.8 and nobody had a 600 either. A bunch of us had 500 f4.0s, but if you can thing of some reason to need a 400 2.8 its simply too easy to borrow one through CPS. Even most of the guys that shoot the SuperBowl borrow the 400s........

So you guys can go crazy trying to answer his questions if you want or he can sell all the vaporware that he has and go buy vaporware Nikons too. I don't believe it.........................

Make a liar out of me, post a pic of all your lenses and you and a current local newspaper here................

Mark H

[cdifoto]

Canon's been down the tubes ever since the Chrysler buyout. It just stands to reason though...all they wanted Canon for is their calculator LCD techonology, to put in their in-dash CD players.

[sapearl]

Man cdi, I don't know where you come up with this stuff.......:lol::lol::lol:. Maybe we can bring back Mr. Iacoca for a bailout.

Canon's been down the tubes ever since the Chrysler buyout. It just stands to reason though...all they wanted Canon for is their calculator LCD techonology, to put in their in-dash CD players.

[CyberDyneSystems]

I spent this past Thursday with one of Canon's Regional Reps. Their products work, assuming you actually know how to use one (how to properly hold it and use real techniques like "backfocusing")...... There are no current problems with the Mark III, I've had one for over 6 months and it was in the affected range and it worked fine. However I did send it in to get it fixed, there was no change in the performance................. I shoot a lot and also bought a 1Ds Mark III to go with the others, it should be in by the time I get back home.

Now to your specific problem...............

I see you have a lot of L Glass. A rough guess is that you have about $15,000 worth of glass to shoot high school sports, etc. I can imagine how hard it must be to hold that 400 2.8 since it weighs about 12 pounds by itself, and is a LOT bigger than the 600mm. When you have a 30D on it you can't hardly hang onto it........

Your post says you've been saving for "2 years" for the Mark IIN replacement, which has been out for almost a year now. I mean if you have been saving for 2 years for a body (Mark III) that only costs $4500 at street, it doesn't make sense that you have so much in the way of expensive lenses......... I mean you must have spent 6 + years saving up for all of them or way longer........ You don't even list any "kit lenses" or other stuff like that.............

If you have a such a large investment, it shouldn't be really hard to figure out if you can justify a 40D body which is maybe a $1000 or so. Even less when you unload the 30D, maybe you have to fork out an additional $500.

Something isn't right here. I figure there is no way that you have all those lenses.... I know at least 125 real professional photographers who were at the symposium this past week, and not one of them had a 400 2.8 and nobody had a 600 either. A bunch of us had 500 f4.0s, but if you can thing of some reason to need a 400 2.8 its simply too easy to borrow one through CPS. Even most of the guys that shoot the SuperBowl borrow the 400s........

So you guys can go crazy trying to answer his questions if you want or he can sell all the vaporware that he has and go buy vaporware Nikons too. I don't believe it.........................

Make a liar out of me, post a pic of all your lenses and you and a current local newspaper here................

Mark H

You offer an opinion and state it as fact,
and it's a bit misplaced as well IMHO. "There are no current problems with the mkIII"

So Canon is recalling them for a sub mirror fix for nothing?
this kind of post is pretty inflammatory to anyone who got a dud, and had to send it back. It's great that your particular MkIII is without problems.
Please do not assume that since yours works that every one else with issues simply "does not know how to use it"

[skydog]

Mark...almost sound like Canon rep. I'd certainly would like to be married to you..you don't sound like a very trusting soul. I have my lenses and when I have the time I will post. And as you know, I assume, you don't hold a 400 f2.8. When I talked to my photo friends they suggested I put my money in glass before I put any more money upgrading my camera...I agreed. I also have a 580 flash..would you like me to post a pic of that as well? As I told you my concern is ordering and having all the technical issues and returns. I just thought many on this forum would have more experience and knowledge with either camera. Why fork out the money if technical issues still exist. When you have the time I'd love to see a pic of your Mark IIIDs...don't forget the flash card.

[skydog]

Now answer my questions PLEASE

[S.Horton]

Canon's been down the tubes ever since the Chrysler buyout. It just stands to reason though...all they wanted Canon for is their calculator LCD techonology, to put in their in-dash CD players.

Right and Honourable CDI/Pron shooter:

That's completely wrong.

Canon went down the tubes when Ford bought them, merged them with Volvo for reliability, then told Volvo they had to use Ford parts. That happened at about the same time they told Volvo to stop serving alcohol to employees over the holidays.

Productivity plunged, workers entered an unhappiness-productivity-vacation spiral, and tanked a design or two.

Geeesh. Get your facts straight before posting.

(Great post from you there -- getting popcorn)

[Tom W]

Now answer my questions PLEASE

:D

There's an ongoing thread with a poll here:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=462110

Just click on the "view poll results" to see how people are finding the body's performance. It looks like the newer "blue dot" bodies are performing well compared to those that had problems and were subsequently sent to Canon for repairs.

It's worth reading all the comments in the thread.

[sapearl]

Ginger..... MaryAnne. Ginger..... MaryAnne. I simply can't make up my mind :rolleyes:. I certainly wanted the Volvo wagon but couldn't afford it, glad I got the Sable wagon instead; no empty vodka bottles under the third seat.

Right and Honourable CDI/Pron shooter:

That's completely wrong.

Canon went down the tubes when Ford bought them, merged them with Volvo for reliability, then told Volvo they had to use Ford parts. That happened at about the same time they told Volvo to stop serving alcohol to employees over the holidays. ....

[cdifoto]

MaryAnne FTW. She looked good in those shorts. Rawr. And she STILL looked good for the Rescue from Gilligan's Island reunion movie 11 years on! :cool:

[S.Horton]

Date the blonde.

Marry the brunette.

[sapearl]

DUDE!! I saw that show..... you are SO right :D.

MaryAnne FTW. She looked good in those shorts. Rawr. And she STILL looked good for the Rescue from Gilligan's Island reunion movie 11 years on! :cool:

[sapearl]

Between your's and cdi's recommendation I would either be in 7th heaven or jail.

Date the blonde.

Marry the brunette.

[S.Horton]

I think they're the same place.

See: Dante, not the member, the author; we may live in a cosmic joke.

[skydog]

Guys...let's just close this thread...it is out of control...I was just looking for some opinions and answers. Tom..thanks for the link...

[Tom W]

MaryAnne FTW. She looked good in those shorts. Rawr.

MaryAnne was HAWT, though I was too young to understand why I thought that she was at the time. :)