Best Digital SLRs--Canon Leaving Nikon in Dust?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Larry R Harrison Jr, Jul 31, 2003.

  1. Oh boy. I'm going to stir up a hornet's nest with this thread, huh?
    Not my intention at all.

    I'm a huge Nikon fan in the film world. That said, it looks as though
    Canon is leaving Nikon in the dust with digital SLRs. The D100 has
    been good but I'm hearing the EOS10D is better, and the D1x was great
    but now it looks as though the EOS-1Ds leaves it in the dust.

    It seems to be sort of how, say, Nikon did this themselves in the film
    world when they introduced the F5. Until Canon upgraded their EOS-1n
    to the EOS-1v, the impression was that the F5 was ***the*** camera, no
    contest.

    Then again, I've noticed how Kodak's 14n and Fuji's S2--highly
    regarded DSLRs themselves--use Nikon-mount lenses and obviously are
    based somewhat on the D100. So obviously a lot of companies are
    betting on Nikon's ability to rebound (if they do in fact have a need
    to "rebound.")

    Tips?

    LRH
     
    Larry R Harrison Jr, Jul 31, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Larry R Harrison Jr

    ralford Guest

    and is there a question here or simply waving a red flag at a bunch of bored
    bulls?

    looks like a thread that needs to be killfilled.

    rma

    "Larry R Harrison Jr" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Oh boy. I'm going to stir up a hornet's nest with this thread, huh?
    > Not my intention at all.
    >
    > I'm a huge Nikon fan in the film world. That said, it looks as though
    > Canon is leaving Nikon in the dust with digital SLRs. The D100 has
    > been good but I'm hearing the EOS10D is better, and the D1x was great
    > but now it looks as though the EOS-1Ds leaves it in the dust.
    >
    > It seems to be sort of how, say, Nikon did this themselves in the film
    > world when they introduced the F5. Until Canon upgraded their EOS-1n
    > to the EOS-1v, the impression was that the F5 was ***the*** camera, no
    > contest.
    >
    > Then again, I've noticed how Kodak's 14n and Fuji's S2--highly
    > regarded DSLRs themselves--use Nikon-mount lenses and obviously are
    > based somewhat on the D100. So obviously a lot of companies are
    > betting on Nikon's ability to rebound (if they do in fact have a need
    > to "rebound.")
    >
    > Tips?
    >
    > LRH
     
    ralford, Jul 31, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Larry R Harrison Jr

    Rafe B. Guest

    On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 00:21:12 GMT, "ralford" <>
    wrote:

    >and is there a question here or simply waving a red flag at a bunch of bored
    >bulls?
    >
    >looks like a thread that needs to be killfilled.
    >
    >rma



    No, I don't agree with that. It's a serious issue for those
    of us who've been using Nikon gear for years, waiting
    for the right "moment" to go for a digital SLR.

    Let's say -- for example -- I've got a collection of Nikon
    lenses worth (in total) roughly the cost of a Canon L 24-70.

    What do do? Pay the extra dough for the D100 or
    the S2, to leverage some old Nikon glass, or ditch the
    Nikon and start fresh?

    I chose the latter.


    rafe b.
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com
     
    Rafe B., Jul 31, 2003
    #3
  4. Larry R Harrison Jr

    MarkH Guest

    (Larry R Harrison Jr) wrote in
    news::

    > I'm a huge Nikon fan in the film world. That said, it looks as though
    > Canon is leaving Nikon in the dust with digital SLRs. The D100 has
    > been good but I'm hearing the EOS10D is better, and the D1x was great
    > but now it looks as though the EOS-1Ds leaves it in the dust.


    I have never used a D100, I have a Canon 10D. I think that the 10D is a
    little better in the ways that matter to me. But my understanding is that
    the Nikon D100 is not far behind. I doubt that many Nikon fans that
    already have some good lenses would bother changing to Canon.

    I was thinking that the pros had good reason to change camps, but the newly
    announced Nikon D2h should keep a lot of sports shooters from changing to
    the Canon 1D.

    The 1Ds is indeed superior to anything Nikon currently has, but surely
    after the D2h there will be a new model to replace the D1x as well?

    Canon may be ahead of Nikon at the moment, but Nikon is not far behind. I
    don't really think it is accurate to say that Nikon has been left in the
    dust, more like snapping at the heels.

    Canon 10D = Good Camera
    Nikon D100 = Good Camera
    Canon 1D = Good Camera
    Nikon D2h = Good Camera (from what I know so far)
    Canon 1Ds = Good Camera
    Nikon errr D2x or something? = Good Camera (bound to be, surely)

    Plenty of good cameras available, and soon to be available. Just because I
    have a Canon does not entitle me to put down other brands.

    different people = different priorities.

    Canon suits me, Nikon suits others. Without the competition Canon would
    not be as good, and would cost more. So thanks to all you Nikon owners.



    --
    Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
    See my pics at http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~markh/
    "There are 10 types of people, those that
    understand binary and those that don't"
     
    MarkH, Jul 31, 2003
    #4
  5. Larry R Harrison Jr

    Paul Rubin Guest

    MarkH <> writes:
    > I have never used a D100, I have a Canon 10D. I think that the 10D is a
    > little better in the ways that matter to me. But my understanding is that
    > the Nikon D100 is not far behind. I doubt that many Nikon fans that
    > already have some good lenses would bother changing to Canon.


    Nikon screwed itself using the F80 platform for the D100, because it
    won't meter with manual focus Nikkors. So many Nikon fans with lots
    of good lenses STILL find themselves with no good reason not to switch
    to Canon.

    > The 1Ds is indeed superior to anything Nikon currently has, but surely
    > after the D2h there will be a new model to replace the D1x as well?


    Nikon's DX lens line makes some people think Nikon is resisting full
    frame sensors and sticking with 1.5x. I hope they're wrong.

    > Canon may be ahead of Nikon at the moment, but Nikon is not far behind. I
    > don't really think it is accurate to say that Nikon has been left in the
    > dust, more like snapping at the heels.


    Let's not forget the Fuji S2 Pro and the Kodak 14n, both Nikon-mount
    cameras, though apparently the 14n leaves some things to be desired.
     
    Paul Rubin, Jul 31, 2003
    #5
  6. Larry R Harrison Jr

    Gavin Cato Guest

    Your subject is a bit provocative.

    A few facts ;

    1)

    For the pro sector, when Nikon released the D1 it took Canon a bloody long
    time to match it. This is similar to what is happening at the moment, the
    two companies are playing leapfrog. Nikon is about to do it's own leapfrog
    again.

    2)

    It took Canon 2 attempts with their 6mp entry level DSLR's to match the
    D100.

    The D60 was given a woefully inadequate AF module (as was the D30, but I'm
    leaving it out) and very limited (and bad quality) high ISO support. The 10D
    fixed the AF and gained excellent high iso performance, however the camera
    is still not as fast as the D100.

    The D100 still has faster AF, particularly in low light. It has instant
    power on, has better battery usage, you can view images *before* and during
    the writing to the CF card, it has a spot meter, much better RAW support.
    I'll agree the 10D CMOS sensor is better than the D100 CCD, however the
    difference is more something you see when viewing the image at 100% or more
    in photoshop, not so much on print.

    Considering the D100 had already been out for 8-10 months when the 10D came
    out, the 10D should have spanked it. It's a note of just how good the D100
    is that it didn't.

    3)

    Nikon's answer to the 1Ds hasn't arrived yet. In the same way as it took
    Canon a while to reply to the D1, it's taking Nikon a while to reply to the
    1Ds.

    btw don't be so sure that the 1Ds "leaves the d1x in the dust". Have you
    used both side by side to be able to say that? The 1Ds is a fine camera, but
    the D1x is also an extremely good camera. Certainly the 1Ds would be better
    for larger prints but the D1x still produces extremely good images,
    particularly when it is producing the 10.5mp images via the "quirk" in it's
    odd shaped sensor arrangement in conjunction with nikon capture 3.

    4)

    Nikon are the only DSLR where you can get true wide angle available at a
    affordable price. A D100 with the DX 12-24mm lens is realistic for most DSLR
    owners, and gives you 18mm wide angle. You simply cannot get 18mm on the 10D
    without resorting to a fisheye (hardly suitable). The 1D with it's 1.3x
    sensor can give you wide angle but it's a very expensive camera and you'll
    need an expensive lens (i.e. 14mm). The 1Ds of course will give you wide
    angle but at an insane price.

    And, the 1Ds when paired with wide angle lenses such as the 16-35 exhibits
    severe chromatic abberration. The Kodak 14N, whilst being a bit of a
    dissapointment generally, when paired with the Nikon 17-35/2.8 lens does not
    suffer from this.

    Theres other stuff I can go on about but thats probably more than enough for
    now :)

    cheers

    Gav





    "Larry R Harrison Jr" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Oh boy. I'm going to stir up a hornet's nest with this thread, huh?
    > Not my intention at all.
    >
    > I'm a huge Nikon fan in the film world. That said, it looks as though
    > Canon is leaving Nikon in the dust with digital SLRs. The D100 has
    > been good but I'm hearing the EOS10D is better, and the D1x was great
    > but now it looks as though the EOS-1Ds leaves it in the dust.
    >
    > It seems to be sort of how, say, Nikon did this themselves in the film
    > world when they introduced the F5. Until Canon upgraded their EOS-1n
    > to the EOS-1v, the impression was that the F5 was ***the*** camera, no
    > contest.
    >
    > Then again, I've noticed how Kodak's 14n and Fuji's S2--highly
    > regarded DSLRs themselves--use Nikon-mount lenses and obviously are
    > based somewhat on the D100. So obviously a lot of companies are
    > betting on Nikon's ability to rebound (if they do in fact have a need
    > to "rebound.")
    >
    > Tips?
    >
    > LRH
     
    Gavin Cato, Jul 31, 2003
    #6
  7. I'd say it depends on what application you intend to use the camera, what
    market if any you'll service, how much you want to spend, and what glass you
    intend to use.

    Derrick

    "Larry R Harrison Jr" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Oh boy. I'm going to stir up a hornet's nest with this thread, huh?
    > Not my intention at all.
    >
    > I'm a huge Nikon fan in the film world. That said, it looks as though
    > Canon is leaving Nikon in the dust with digital SLRs. The D100 has
    > been good but I'm hearing the EOS10D is better, and the D1x was great
    > but now it looks as though the EOS-1Ds leaves it in the dust.
    >
    > It seems to be sort of how, say, Nikon did this themselves in the film
    > world when they introduced the F5. Until Canon upgraded their EOS-1n
    > to the EOS-1v, the impression was that the F5 was ***the*** camera, no
    > contest.
    >
    > Then again, I've noticed how Kodak's 14n and Fuji's S2--highly
    > regarded DSLRs themselves--use Nikon-mount lenses and obviously are
    > based somewhat on the D100. So obviously a lot of companies are
    > betting on Nikon's ability to rebound (if they do in fact have a need
    > to "rebound.")
    >
    > Tips?
    >
    > LRH
     
    Surfworx Photography, Jul 31, 2003
    #7
  8. (Larry R Harrison Jr) wrote in message news:<>...

    > I'm a huge Nikon fan in the film world. That said, it looks as though
    > Canon is leaving Nikon in the dust with digital SLRs. The D100 has
    > been good but I'm hearing the EOS10D is better, and the D1x was great
    > but now it looks as though the EOS-1Ds leaves it in the dust.


    The 10D (which I now happily own) is not necessarily a better camera.
    In fact there is not much difference in the pictures of a D100, 10D
    and Fuji S2. As far as I see it (having played with all three of them
    and having rented the Nikon, now owning the 10D), there are no big
    reasons to go either system. There is a lot of press around the 10D
    simply because it is a darn good camera and it is brand new. The
    Nikon, on the other hand, has been on the market for several month, is
    still a very good camera but just plain expensive.

    > It seems to be sort of how, say, Nikon did this themselves in the film
    > world when they introduced the F5. Until Canon upgraded their EOS-1n
    > to the EOS-1v, the impression was that the F5 was ***the*** camera, no
    > contest.


    There is a lot of pro shooters switching from Nikon to Canon and most
    do it for reasons other than comparing camera bodies. Some of these
    reasons include Canon's CPS support especially at big events, Canon's
    more innovative way of introducing new technologies in their
    equipment. A lot of pros complain about the F5 and its "pathetic"
    autofocus as compared to the nearly perfect EOS 1V, but a lot of
    amateurs say it is a lot better than Canon's midrange line of cameras.
    Whatever.

    All I can say is that a professional photographer's decision is not
    based on public opinion or emotions, but rather on a specific business
    case that causes him to pretty much dump 45k$ worth of equipment to
    shell out another 45k$ for that other brand.

    > Then again, I've noticed how Kodak's 14n and Fuji's S2--highly
    > regarded DSLRs themselves--use Nikon-mount lenses and obviously are
    > based somewhat on the D100. So obviously a lot of companies are
    > betting on Nikon's ability to rebound (if they do in fact have a need
    > to "rebound.")


    Both Kodak and Fuji chose Nikon analogue bodies to build their digital
    stuff around. They may as well have chosen Canon or Minolta bodies for
    that matter, in fact I believe some have (just take the D2000 and so
    on)
    This is purely a business decision that unlike the professional
    photographer's business decision is not necessarily about getting
    perfect results. Kodak's and Fuji's profit is a direct result of
    camera sales; the pro's profit is a direct result of pictures taken.

    The choice is simply. If you have Nikon glass, get a Nikon. If you
    have Canon glass, get a Canon. If you have neither, get whatever you
    like. If you feel like having a Nikon because you'll get a boner, for
    christ's sake get a Nikon. What use is a potentially technically
    better camera if you're emotionally attached to something else?

    And I wouldn't give too much on Nikon's DX lenses. First of all, they
    ARE expensive and second it's a matter of months until Canon has
    something similar... as usual, it is a matter of months for the other
    one to have the same offering

    Now, I would, however, stay clear of Sigma and Minolta. I have yet to
    see a Minolta strategy that includes digital SLR because right now
    they are missing the boat and proud of it. As far as Sigma goes, I
    hated the body for several reasons when I played with the SD9 and
    there is only a few good pieces of Sigma glass out there. I miss the
    truly outstanding lenses, which both Nikon and Canon have (and Minolta
    and Pentax) but Sigma doesn't. Their 70-200/2.8 for instance is very
    nice, but the Canon 70-200 is still better.
     
    Bernhard Mayer, Jul 31, 2003
    #8
  9. Andrew McDonald <> wrote in message news:<zdZVa.165$>...

    > The 10D is not "better", it's about comparable. Both cameras have their
    > strengths and weaknesses. And as far as I can tell the 10D was a quick
    > fix replacement for the D60 which had some "issues".


    well, replacing the D60 with an all new body with different AF
    technology and a pro camera magnesium frame (which not even the D100
    has) is hardly a patch

    but a redesigned camera to address the D60 shortcomings, match and in
    some aspects top the D100 - agreed
     
    Bernhard Mayer, Jul 31, 2003
    #9
  10. Paul Rubin <http://> wrote in message news:<>...

    > Nikon screwed itself using the F80 platform for the D100, because it
    > won't meter with manual focus Nikkors. So many Nikon fans with lots
    > of good lenses STILL find themselves with no good reason not to switch
    > to Canon.


    I have been camera shopping lately (quite long period of time
    actually) trying to settle for either Fuji S2, Nikon D100 or Canon
    10D.

    What I have seen in the shops is - quite interesting - exactly what
    you are telling us here. I have met people who have been with Nikon
    for ages and whose FA or F3 or FM2 or whatever has just recently broke
    down. They are now 10-20 years older and seriously consider autofocus,
    but of course would like to use that wide angle they bought on the
    same day they asked their wifes to marry them. They are now faced with
    the decision to either buy a second hand F90 (or older) or a brand new
    but top of the line camera in order to be able to meter with old
    lenses.

    Quite frankly, I don't know what the hell the issue is with metering
    with old lenses. It is obviously possible (see F5), it is obviously
    not a matter of price (see older lower range cameras) and yet...

    I'd say, 2 out of three actually went for a different system (mostly
    Canon) and the third goes home in anger.
     
    Bernhard Mayer, Jul 31, 2003
    #10
  11. Larry R Harrison Jr

    Paul Rubin Guest

    (Bernhard Mayer) writes:
    > Quite frankly, I don't know what the hell the issue is with metering
    > with old lenses. It is obviously possible (see F5), it is obviously
    > not a matter of price (see older lower range cameras) and yet...


    The MF lenses use a mechanical coupling to communicate the aperture
    setting to the camera body. This requires some moving parts in the
    camera that adds a few dollars to the cost. AF lenses use an
    electronic system with no moving parts. They figure only more
    advanced photographers will have MF lenses around, so so they only
    bother to put the mechanical parts into the more expensive cameras
    like the F90. This breaks down when you get to the D100, since the
    D100 is over 2x as expensive as the F90 but it doesn't have the
    mechanical coupling. I see that as completely nuts on Nikon's part.
     
    Paul Rubin, Jul 31, 2003
    #11
  12. In article <>,
    Bernhard Mayer <> wrote:
    >Quite frankly, I don't know what the hell the issue is with metering
    >with old lenses. It is obviously possible (see F5), it is obviously
    >not a matter of price (see older lower range cameras) and yet...


    Nikon has a history of making sure that compatibility with older lenses
    is present on professional bodies, and being 'sloppy' with other bodies.
    For example, on the FE you could mount the oldest non-Ai lenses. On its
    successor, the FE2 that option was dropped. On the F3, F4, and even
    on F5 you can still mount very old Nikkors.

    I can only hope that someone at Nikon checked that this approach actually
    has a positive effect on their bottom line.



    Philip Homburg
     
    Philip Homburg, Jul 31, 2003
    #12
  13. Larry R Harrison Jr

    Bill Guest

    In article <3f2875ed$0$95048$>, "Gavin
    says...
    >
    >Your subject is a bit provocative.
    >
    >A few facts ;
    >
    >1)
    >
    >Nikon is about to do it's own leapfrog
    >again.
    >


    Where's the fact here? The D2h is playing catchup with the 1D, nothing more. And
    considering it's been quite a while (18 months+) since the 1D was released, it's
    hardly a great effort...
     
    Bill, Jul 31, 2003
    #13
  14. Larry R Harrison Jr

    David Oddie Guest

    On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 13:54:07 +0930, "Surfworx Photography"
    <> wrote:

    >I'd say it depends on what application you intend to use the camera, what
    >market if any you'll service, how much you want to spend, and what glass you
    >intend to use.


    I agree and one thing Nikon is doing that Canon isn't is producing
    special lenses for the D100 (etc) range that give you true wide-angle
    capability. Nikon have now three such lenses, A 10mm (I think)
    fisheye that has a special software package to let you use it as a
    rectilinear sper-wide angle lens. A new F2.8 standard zoom that goes
    from something like 26mm-82mm (35mm equiv) to go along with the
    12mm-24mm zoom (18mm-36mm on 35mm)

    With Canon and its 1.6x crop factor you really are limited as to
    wideangle choice, they have nothing like these lenses and so are
    behind in this respect.

    Dave

    --
    It may be that your sole purpose in life is simply to serve as a
    warning to others.

    Remove the uppercase N O S P A M to reply via email.
     
    David Oddie, Jul 31, 2003
    #14
  15. Larry R Harrison Jr

    David Oddie Guest

    On 30 Jul 2003 23:15:28 -0700, (Bernhard Mayer)
    wrote:

    >And I wouldn't give too much on Nikon's DX lenses. First of all, they
    >ARE expensive


    So is a 17mm Canon or any Canon L lens you care to name..

    > and second it's a matter of months until Canon has
    >something similar... as usual, it is a matter of months for the other
    >one to have the same offering


    Are you certain about that? I have seen nothing to indicate they are
    going to follow Nikon's lead here.

    Dave
    --
    It may be that your sole purpose in life is simply to serve as a
    warning to others.

    Remove the uppercase N O S P A M to reply via email.
     
    David Oddie, Jul 31, 2003
    #15
  16. Larry R Harrison Jr

    John Navas Guest

    [POSTED TO rec.photo.digital - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

    In <ftin1gsjt1l9av0qv5hca6ovu6@inews_id.stereo.hq.phicoh.net> on Thu, 31 Jul
    2003 09:20:23 +0200, (Philip Homburg) wrote:

    >In article <>,
    >Bernhard Mayer <> wrote:


    >>Quite frankly, I don't know what the hell the issue is with metering
    >>with old lenses. It is obviously possible (see F5), it is obviously
    >>not a matter of price (see older lower range cameras) and yet...

    >
    >Nikon has a history of making sure that compatibility with older lenses
    >is present on professional bodies, and being 'sloppy' with other bodies.
    >For example, on the FE you could mount the oldest non-Ai lenses. On its
    >successor, the FE2 that option was dropped. On the F3, F4, and even
    >on F5 you can still mount very old Nikkors.
    >
    >I can only hope that someone at Nikon checked that this approach actually
    >has a positive effect on their bottom line.


    I suspect it does. I personally won't buy Canon again because it orphaned all
    of my FD-series lenses, and I know several professionals that buy Nikon in
    part because it preserves lens investments.

    --
    Best regards,
    John Navas
    [PLEASE NOTE: Ads belong *only* in rec.photo.marketplace.digital, as per
    <http://bobatkins.photo.net/info/charter.htm> <http://rpdfaq.50megs.com/>]
     
    John Navas, Jul 31, 2003
    #16
  17. "Paul Rubin" <http://> wrote in message news:...
    > (Bernhard Mayer) writes:
    > > Quite frankly, I don't know what the hell the issue is with metering
    > > with old lenses. It is obviously possible (see F5), it is obviously
    > > not a matter of price (see older lower range cameras) and yet...

    >
    > The MF lenses use a mechanical coupling to communicate the aperture
    > setting to the camera body. This requires some moving parts in the
    > camera that adds a few dollars to the cost. AF lenses use an
    > electronic system with no moving parts. They figure only more
    > advanced photographers will have MF lenses around, so so they only
    > bother to put the mechanical parts into the more expensive cameras
    > like the F90. This breaks down when you get to the D100, since the
    > D100 is over 2x as expensive as the F90 but it doesn't have the
    > mechanical coupling. I see that as completely nuts on Nikon's part.



    Not me. Why should I pay more so you can use your
    20 year old lenses? Digital bodies are and will be
    driven by technology moreso than compatability. You
    need some of course, but only within reason. For the
    few that want digital photos with old technology scanners
    have been around for a while.
     
    Fletis Humplebacker, Jul 31, 2003
    #17
  18. Larry R Harrison Jr

    John Navas Guest

    [POSTED TO rec.photo.digital - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

    In <> on Thu, 31 Jul 2003 08:26:37 -0700,
    "Fletis Humplebacker" <!> wrote:

    >... Why should I pay more so you can use your
    >20 year old lenses? ...


    So you will be able to use your lenses 20 years from now.

    --
    Best regards,
    John Navas
    [PLEASE NOTE: Ads belong *only* in rec.photo.marketplace.digital, as per
    <http://bobatkins.photo.net/info/charter.htm> <http://rpdfaq.50megs.com/>]
     
    John Navas, Jul 31, 2003
    #18
  19. Larry R Harrison Jr

    Polytone Guest

    Nikon does not come even close to Canon in the digital world. The G series
    blows away the Coolpix series. Canon DSLR's RIP any nikon product into the
    dust!


    "Larry R Harrison Jr" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Oh boy. I'm going to stir up a hornet's nest with this thread, huh?
    > Not my intention at all.
    >
    > I'm a huge Nikon fan in the film world. That said, it looks as though
    > Canon is leaving Nikon in the dust with digital SLRs. The D100 has
    > been good but I'm hearing the EOS10D is better, and the D1x was great
    > but now it looks as though the EOS-1Ds leaves it in the dust.
    >
    > It seems to be sort of how, say, Nikon did this themselves in the film
    > world when they introduced the F5. Until Canon upgraded their EOS-1n
    > to the EOS-1v, the impression was that the F5 was ***the*** camera, no
    > contest.
    >
    > Then again, I've noticed how Kodak's 14n and Fuji's S2--highly
    > regarded DSLRs themselves--use Nikon-mount lenses and obviously are
    > based somewhat on the D100. So obviously a lot of companies are
    > betting on Nikon's ability to rebound (if they do in fact have a need
    > to "rebound.")
    >
    > Tips?
    >
    > LRH
    >
     
    Polytone, Jul 31, 2003
    #19
  20. Larry R Harrison Jr

    Todd Walker Guest

    In article <3f292e55$>,
    says...
    > I have a genuine question and I too am not trying
    > to be provocative:
    > Why is it that, if Canons are so good, the pros
    > seem to use D1s almost exclusively? There was a
    > photograph in the Times recently of about 20 PJs
    > surrounding a celebs car and every single one had
    > a D1 - not a Canon on sight. Also, at the events I
    > have attended recently, the PJs had D1s. Not a
    > scientific sample I admit but is it possibly that Canons
    > just aren't as 'bouncy' (i.e. resiliant) as D1s?
    >
    > Graham
    >


    My guess is that it's because the D1 was around long before the Canon 1D
    was introduced. The news agencies, magazines, papers, etc were
    transitioning to digital at the time the D1 came out and many of them
    bought it because there were no alternatives. Now they have an
    investment in the bodies and Nikon glass so it doesn't make sense that
    they move to Canon.

    On the flip side, you know every time you see a sporting event on TV,
    all the photogs have those big white lenses? Well, those are Canon
    lenses so there ain't no D1's on the back of those. Most are probably
    EOS 1N, 1V, or 1D's.

    --
    ________________________________
    Todd Walker
    http://twalker.d2g.com
    Canon 10D
    My Digital Photography Weblog:
    http://twalker.d2g.com/dpblog.htm
    _________________________________
     
    Todd Walker, Jul 31, 2003
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Eolake Stobblehouse

    Question about Nikon digital SLRs, Eolake Stobblehouse

    Eolake Stobblehouse, Sep 7, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    638
    Eolake Stobblehouse
    Sep 7, 2003
  2. Dick Campbell

    Digital SLRs and dust?

    Dick Campbell, Sep 19, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    28
    Views:
    883
  3. DVD Verdict
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    523
    DVD Verdict
    Feb 26, 2004
  4. Nikon Digital SLRs with IX-Nikkor Lens

    , Nov 13, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    2,540
    Paul Rubin
    Nov 14, 2005
  5. Tim

    Nikon SB24 with digital SLRs?

    Tim, Jun 20, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    819
Loading...

Share This Page