Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon EOS dSLR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 19, 2003, 12:41 PM   #1
LFW
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 6
Default Is it worth abandoning my Nikon lenses to change to the 10D?

:? Help! I've thrown this question out to the general population, but didn't get much feedback, so at the risk of getting biased answers I'm asking Canon users, so please try to overcome loyalty for a straight opinion. I'm not a professional photographer, but am a serious amateur. I've been a Nikon user (N90) ops: for about 9+ years. Soooo, I have 4 really nice Nikon lenses, BUT I have read so many good things about the Canon 10D and especially like the idea of the CMOS image sensor, that I am leaning toward the 10D as opposed to a Nikon D100 for my next camera. (I have a Nikon 880 but want to go to SLR) Is this crazy or worth the change and the $. Changing lenses frequently on a digital camera seems to be frowned on anyway and low and behold I can't use my SB25 flash TTL on the D100 anyway. I would love to hear anyone's opinion on my delemma. Many thanks!
LFW is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old May 19, 2003, 1:35 PM   #2
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

Hey Join the Club!


I have really good Minolta 'G' lenses, and doing the same... May be next year and another model and we can all go back... :lol: :lol: :lol:

I'm going for the Sigma EX series to limit the damage in wide aperture lenses. 8)
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 19, 2003, 5:44 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803
Default

There are many fascets to this questions.

Money: You would have to sell those lenses at a loss and buy replacement lenses. On average (only talking money here) Canon lenses are cheaper for the same lens, but I bet you will still be out money in the exchange. Can you afford to do that?

Time: Can you wait to go digital? It is safe to say that Nikon will put out another DSLR. It might not be as good as the 1Ds, but I bet it will be as good as the 10D if not slighty better (they would be fools not to.) If you need to go digital now, then you can't wait. If you can wait, then your choice becomes harder because you save money on the lenses.

Lenses: Do you need something which Nikon doesn't offer? To me, that means IS in more lenses and DO in the 400mm (and eventually others.) Do you need something which Canon doesn't offer? The DX lens line, which gives reasonable wide angle for DSLRs? But I expect Canon will produce the equivalent, once it decided on a sensor size multiplier (1.3x vs. 1.6x.)

Smaller things. I hear that in some situations the Nikon flash system is better. I hear that the Nikon software is better (this can be mostly avoided with uses 3rd party editors and RAW converters. But if you are going to slave the camera to the computer, then you are stuck.) Nikon has a real spot meter, the 10D doesn't. Nikon seems to offer more Macro/Micro lenses than Canon. 3rd party lenses can fill that gap, though. Nikon seems to care more about working with 3rd party lens dealers (you don't hear about how Sigma lens X doesn't work on the new Nikon body. Doesn't happen.)

I am not in the same boat as you. I have nothing invested in a system which matters. Just an old manual-everything SLR. Because of this, my choice was much easier. I'm going with the 10D because I want the IS lenses and the slightly cheaper lenses. I hike a lot and don't want to bring a tripod. I might also use the camera from a boat. There just aren't enough VR lenses in the Nikon lineup. Eventually there will be, but not right now... and I'm sick of waiting.

The answer I give to this question usually goes like this. You are buying into a system. Bodies come and go, but you will keep the lenses and maybe flashes. Which company offers the lenses you need to do what you want? You will spend *way* more money on Lenses then you ever will on a body (except the 1Ds.) Canon is ahead right now in bodies, but Nikon will put something out which will put them ahead later. It's the nature of the beast.

In the ways that it matters to me, Canon is ahead in lenses, but that is because I want long lenses with IS. The Canon 100-400 has high speed motors, the Nikon doesn't. The Canon has a smaller DO lens, Nikon doesn't. Figure out what you need in a system and what time frame you have to work with. Think about the cost if you switch. Once you factor those things together, I bet your answer becomes much easier.
eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 19, 2003, 9:39 PM   #4
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

IMO staying loyal to one brand is moot in theses days of microelectronics and PCs. Really 6.3Mp is nothing to brag about (and only a minor step up from a 5Mp) when 14Mp is already available, except for the speed of operation. The EOS10D just happened to lower the price of entry so that one can upgrade to another camera in a year or so! Having Nikon (or Minolta's) lenses just get you more choices on the next go around! Just like PC's IMO, don't go for the most expensive cameras because in 6-12 months they'll be 1/2 price or close to it according to Moore's law...:lol: :lol: :lol:

Erics
Quote:
I hear that in some situations the Nikon flash system is better
Actually Minolta has the best system with both lens distance and focal lenght info integrated with their TTL sensors, and they are the 1st with a wireless system ever since their Xi SLR series, anyway this is moot since they don't have a dSLR (except for that lowly D7Hi :lol! None of the Nikon wireless feature work on their dSLR that leave the Canon's then with the most flexible system right now with the E-TTL flash for their EOS including the 10D... 8) 8) 8)
http://www.photozone.de/3Technology/flashtec6.htm

... I still have all my Canon's FD lenses from when I switched over to the Minolta for the AF! :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 19, 2003, 11:20 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803
Default

My understanding is that the metering information is integrated into the flash system better with D-TTL than with what Canon has (E-TTL?). I wasn't claiming that Nikon had the best (and nor were you just that for some people a better flash system matters. For me.... I don't know if it does. I'd like to be a purest and say I'll take the picture that I see.... but reality is that a good flash (and a better beamer) can take a blown out backlit picture and make it into a good picture.

Quote:
IMO staying loyal to one brand is moot in theses days of microelectronics and PCs
With consumer and prosumer cameras I agree, but not when you get into DLSRs. When you've invested >5K into lenses and other proprietary stuff it's expensive to sell that at a loss just to switch to get feature X in the latest camera body. You must really need it, because that is one expensive feature! I expect Canon and Nikon to continue to go back and forth with the "must have" DSLR bodies for awhile. I don't think you should switch systems just because the other has the body that’s better right now. The part of that sentence which really matters is the "right now" not the "body that’s better" part. If you don't consider the D100 good enough, they will put out one that is better… so can you wait? I expect it to be announced this year (Availability? No idea.) You should switch because of the system, not because of the body… unless the body can do something that you really want to do and you are willing to loose money selling your old stuff and spending more money replacing it. I make what I consider to be a lot of money, but I wouldn’t be willing to do that on the features in a camera body that I could replace in 3-4 years… that is nothing in the life of a good lens.

It should be said that I’m really talking about being system loyal, not brand loyal. If someone came out with an amazing F-mount body (The Fuji S2 isn’t bad…) then consider that too.
eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 20, 2003, 12:22 AM   #6
LFW
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 6
Default Good advice

Thank you for the good advice and responses. Admittedly one additional dilemma is whether or not to wait for Nikon to come out with the next generation and possibly go CMOS. I'm not in a hurry by any means, although it would just be nice to have that camera now, waiting may be the way to go. I still like and will use my N90, so I plan to hold on to my lenses. I really like my 105 Macro and the 80-200 2.8 is a great lens when I don't mind lugging it around. So waiting is a good option as is the Fuji S2, If they could just get the battery situation resolved. One of the problems I have with Nikon is their service. Just the fact that one can't use the SB25, except manually, on the D100 but can on the Fuji makes me think they (NiKon) have 'attitude'. So many pros, so many cons too many decisions. All input is always welcome, I may still be trying to resolve this at the same time next year!
LFW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 20, 2003, 5:43 AM   #7
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

Quote:
With consumer and prosumer cameras I agree, but not when you get into DLSRs. When you've invested >5K into lenses and other proprietary stuff it's expensive to sell that at a loss just to switch to get feature X in the latest camera body. You must really need it, because that is one expensive feature!
... It's the main reason I picked Sigma EX lenses, they slot betwen the run of the mill Canon's and their 'L' series without costing a fortune.

It's not like with film where you can always go for the latest emulsion with the same camera. Updating a body is a given in this business, so plan for it... BTW the grass is always greener on the other side, so I'll just keep my option open :lol: :lol: :lol:
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 20, 2003, 9:17 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803
Default

NHL

If Sigma has a good lens in the focal length you want, then it is definitely worth consideration. The complaint I've heard (among others) is that the Sigma lenses loose more of their value than the OEM ones. But I don't know if that is in total $$ (I loose $200 when reselling the sigma vs. $150 on the Canon) which would be a bit surprising considering the cost difference between the two, or if it its just a greater % of the original... which is more logical, but usually less meaningful.

LFW
I know about that waiting thing. I started serious research last fall. I’m buying now. But the weather was so bad here I rarely missed having the camera over the winter.
eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 20, 2003, 9:25 AM   #9
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

Erics

My plan is not to sell... Witness all my equipments, I just collect them... My goal is to limit the damage so I can buy another body with a higher resolution in a year or two. :lol: :lol: :lol:

BTW I'm also checking out some used F5 so I can start investing in Nikon lenses for the future! 8)
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 20, 2003, 2:01 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803
Default

Ya, but most people need to sell the old to afford the new and after a 1 or 2 spares, most people don't need another.

Are you planning a new wing on the house for the "old camera" museum you're storing up for? :lol:
eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 4:22 PM.