Michael

I was reading this and it is quite interesting. I suppose I am biased towards Nikon because a lot of people bring them down and talk really bad about them. However, this article supports, at least a little bit, that Nikon performs really well in demanding weather. Take a look: - ONLY REGISTERED AND ACTIVATED USERS CAN SEE ALL LINKS - CLICK HERE TO REGISTER

Curb Zone

 

The Emperor

I can only say: WOW!!!

far2000

thats a big surprise,

On another note, was watching the Uefa game last nite between united and lile, and damn was the place crowded with White walls of canon Lenses..dont think i spotted a non white lense....maybe a few Mark3 were there...

far2000

A quick quote:
I won't enter the debate, but the partisan bikkering online over this is quite astonishing. What I will add are two comments.

1: We were unprepared for rain that day in South Georgia. We found ourselves ashore, it started to rain, and we kept shooting. None of us had anything more than a hand towl or plastic bag for protection of our equipment. There was nowhere to go for shelter, and short of leaving our cameras in their bags nothing to do except keep shooting in an extraordinary environment.
2: If there had been 45 Nikon and 5 Canons in use, rather than the other way round, I think it likely that the shoe would have been on the other foot.

I have used my Canon 1Ds and 1Ds MKII in snow stroms, dust storms, heavy rain and worse. I've never had one die. Similarly in past years with Nikon gear. On my trip to Namibia last year the front element fell off a Hasselblad lens on its third day of use. The same thing happened to a new Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L on a shoot in Costa Rica a few years ago.
Pros and ardent amateurs use their equipment in all sorts of conditions, sometimes harshly, and sometimes not. But gear does fail. Sometimes its the elements, sometimes abuse, and yes, sometimes poor craftsmanship and materials. But no one should draw any unwarrented conclusions from this report. There just arent enough facts available, and the sample was highly scewed statistically.

The Artist

ohh lord those pics are award winning

Alfie

Some amazing pictures! Thank you.

Osnabrueck

Funny - sounds like one of those ancedotal craftsmanship storys straight out of Automotive world tailor-made for the world of fanatical brand worshipers who like to believe utter nonsense about what differentiates their favorite camera/car/shoe/computer/stereo from the rest.

"I took my VW through the Sahara and it worked like a charm! The Mercedes broke down and got eaten by a sand worm. Just goes to show!"

It doesn't take a half-eaten retard to know that Cannon makes great cameras - as evidenced by legions of professionals who use their gear. You could take any professional SLR into "environment x" along with some other random camera and get all sorts of wacky results. Sometimes a pile of dung contains a fleck of gold.

Which isn't to say that Nikon is better or worse than Cannon. They, like most of the field, are on parity. Digicams are so good, when you're talking about what $1,500 will get you, trying to declare superiority is a matter of obsessively splitting hairs.

One more thing - from the horse's mouth:
"As for why the majority of the camera failures seen on this trip were Canon, the answer is because 85% of the trip's members were shooting Canon. Simple statistics."

Michael

Mark 3? The new one? No. However, if Canon is still testing it with a Mark II badge then maybe

I don't expect anyone here to debate this. I am very much aware that there were less Nikons in this trip. However, I must say that I truly believe that Nikon's have shown, if any, to be slightly better at being weatherproof. That is only a slight increase from that of Canon. Either way statistically it is not accurate to say that Nikon is better based on this Antarctica experience because there were far less Nikons than Canons.

Speaking about reliabitliy, and I am only echoing what I read at dpreview.com, Nikon and Canon should look very closely at these failures. You are paying sometimes in upwards of $2,000 US for this equipment and it should be robust and capable of being used in the snow and rain. Now, snow is one thing, but rain eventually there would be a line drawn.

Curb Zone