Michael

summberbenz are you Nevadajack?

Well, I think that pictures taken with either Nikon or Canon will not be distinguishable as you said. Nevertheless, as far as brand and company relations with its customers are concerned I think Nikon has taken a step forward in front of Canon—for now. For how long? No one knows. Nevertheless, if it is true what Nikon is saying about their noise levels—which I have to say were not bad, but were not excellent either—then this may put them eye to eye with Canon or above. You see, it would be nice for the sea of white lenses at stadiums around the world to be more competitive with Nikon gear. This can only be good for everyone since competition yields good products for the consumer. There is only one issue that I have with Canon and it is their ergonomics. I feel they are not as effective as Nikons. Am I right in saying this? Absolutely not. It may be that I just don’t want to adapt to it and it is just as good as or even better than Nikon’s ergonomics. Everyone has a preference though.

You are right, this is just like cars. Sometimes BMW's are known to be better, sometimes they are not. The bottom line is that both Canon and Nikon are great companies that offer great products. I am happy that Nikon introduced the following cameras because if not, I would probably have looked at Canon as an option down the road. Do I have a brand loyalty to Nikon? I think I may since my father had a Nikon and Nikon really dominated the market when it was film. I feel, like many do, that I grew up with Nikon equipment around me. Nikon seemed to be everywhere with everyone. To someone such as myself, it is nice to see Nikon move forward because it means that they are serious about the pro industry. Some had made the assertion that they were so concentrated with the coolpix and lower end DSLR market that they would not update their pro level cameras as much. Well, I guess those were proven wrong.

As far as dpreview.com is concerned you are right. It is crazy right now and there are no posts there that actually contribute anything to whether the D3 or D300 are good. I have my own dilemma which I won’t start to discuss there because it will get lost in the sea of threads of nonsense and overlooked, but I can’t decide what I should continue investing in. You see, my D200 is literally brand new. I don’t think it is financially feasible for me to jump to another Nikon right now. I have about 3-4 years left in this baby. By then there will be a newer Nikon out. My point is, should I invest in nicer glass such as the 70-200mm 2.8 which is an incredible lense that I have been yearning for, or just sit back and not do anything and stick with what lenses I have. The reason why I have this dilemma is because Nikon just took out an FX format, i.e., full frame, and there are lenses that will go with that. At this moment I think the DX format sensors still have a good many years ahead of them, but I don’t know if I really want to invest in DX lenses such as the 70-200mm. The D300 is still a DX sensor. At this moment it is really hard to tell where the industry is going. Look at Canon, they have three different types of sensors and they still support them. Will the industry move to full frame?

Curb Zone

 

summerbenz

Yep...nevedajack and summerbenz are one in the same...scary huh...:-)

I agree with all your points Michael. As far as what to commit to in the long term that is a tough one. If you have complete confidence in Nikon then by all means plan a long relationship with them. However, in today's world, technology changes so fast that no one knows what product will survive. Who knows, Kodak may come back from the grave...:-) Being much older I just find it easier to stay with Canon and buy (sight unseen or tested) the 40D and use my 5 lenses that I know work well for me.

I just shipped my 20D and EF-S 17-85 IS lens to Aldorama for a quote on a trade for the 40D. I don't want to fool with eBay even though I could probably get $300-400 more than Aldorama is going to offer me. But if the price in reasonable then I just have to say fine and ship me a 40D and pay the difference. At least the 20D is not sitting on a shelf in my den.

Michael

Jack, my god I am so happy it is you I am speaking with. Before I even knew it was you, I thought about you because the way you were writing was..well you!

You know, sticking with either brand is good. The only scary thing is investing so much in lenses.

summerbenz

The glass is the guts of the system. The bodies can change and bring us new technology but it is the lenses that cost the most and make the images what we want them to be. Commit yourself to one or the other and stay with them as long as you think you are getting what you want from the system. If you feel that Canon or Nikon no longer can meet your needs then look into a change. Good glass holds it value and always has a market somewhere. Also one can become a backup if you really get into the business of shooting images large scale.

Michael

The new 14.24mm 2.8 and 24-70mm2.8 with what I want to get (70-200mm2.8) would make an excellent combination. I will wait and see how much the first two are and how good they are. They can be used with both FX and DX.

Michael

Man, I am really loving what is coming out of the D3, so far, for ISO performance. I am thinking of possibly looking at it as a potential back-up body to the D200 I have. I don't know yet since my D200 is great as it is.

Alfie

I heard recently that with a battery grip the D300's fps is boosted to 8fps. That's pretty impressive.

Michael

That is correct. Additionally, the grip is magnesium, which is not like the plastic grip that was available, that I have, for the D200.

Curb Zone