It,s WAR

[Ian Latham]

Its Canon v Nikon.......and Nikon have just kicked ass with their latest offerings (D3 & D300).

Does anyone imagine that Canon will take this lying down (I don't think so!!).

Nikon have temporarily filled a gap in the DLSR market with the D300, which has become a sort of 'budget pro camera', slotted in between 'prosumer' and career pro cameras.

Now Canon must reply and slot a camera in between the 40D and the 1DS MK l/llls.

They will also have to better the Nikon D3 if they are to reclaim their crown.

None of this is helping my dilemma as a consumer.....I want to upgrade from a Nikon D50 to a useful birding set up between £2/3000 but I dont want to get caught in the crossfire. The D90 is just around the corner so why buy the D80?, the D300 warrants some decent glass which Nikon are short of around the 300/400mm mark.

Canon seem to have the best, and (judging from this forums gallery) the most popular set up with the 40D and a fare selection of good lenses around the £1000 mark (within budget).

Whats next............anyone got a crystal ball?

[kcactionphoto]

I bet they release a replacement for the 5D, probably a $2000 dollar full frame body that will place it in line with the D300 but offer full frame instead of cropped. I believe the 5D is Canon's oldest model in their lineup, due for a makeover.

[nigelblake]

Is this your considered opinion after have extensively tested the assorted models you mention, or are you just recycling some of the old tosh written elsewhere on the net.

Its getting all to common on Bird Forum, (as well as other fora) that strong pro or anti views are being posted about equipment by people who's only knowledge of what they are commenting on is what they've read elsewhere on the net, the nearest they have got to real experence of the kit is gazing longingly at others peoples cameras or lens'.

This I think is doing a real disservice to people who are trying to form an oppinion on what to spend their hard earned cash on.

[Outboard]

Is this your considered opinion after have extensively tested the assorted models you mention, or are you just recycling some of the old tosh written elsewhere on the net.

Its getting all to common on Bird Forum, (as well as other fora) that strong pro or anti views are being posted about equipment by people who's only knowledge of what they are commenting on is what they've read elsewhere on the net, the nearest they have got to real experence of the kit is gazing longingly at others peoples cameras or lens'.

This I think is doing a real disservice to people who are trying to form an oppinion on what to spend their hard earned cash on.

I seem to recall a thread not so long ago where you were doing the very same thing. http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=103067
You fire off a 100 shots on D3 pronounce that all the reviews on this excellent camera must have been carried out by David Blunkett only to get slapped down by a certain Andy Rouse. The words black, kettle and pot spring to mind.

[Ian Latham]

In reply to Mr Blake's naive rant....................

If I (a) had the time to extensively test all the current camera models or (b) was privy to an unbiased opinion from an honest, reliable source, then I would not have written the piece above.

For instance;

I will not go into a camera shop and ask for a salesperson to give me an unbaised, honest opinion on which camera would best suit my intended purpose. It would be (heavily) based on who their supplier was, the deal of the week, latest promotion etc..... Besides; a couple of the larger outlets (in my area) seem intent on employing persons to whom photography is their last interest and could easily be convinced that 'digital algorithms' and 'coefficient of resolution' are nightclubs in Ibiza.

So who then do I extract the information required for my valued future purchase? Perhaps a professional like the ones I see down at my local WWT sanctuary, waving his 600mm and Gitzo GT about for all to see, two 1D MK llls around his neck and a ATS HD Swarovski in the other hand and his own ''website'' where he can gas on all about his ''fabulous life''? I dont think so!! He would either tell me to effoff or blind me with the science of his superior knowledge. (yawn)

The internet has a vast array of reviewists who claim to have the information we all require.......... So I read all about the latest products on the market and examine the technical data they give us to ensure the camera has all the latest specs and its gadgetry is all marvelous and it will fullfil my every whim. Please!! I'm 43 not 12.....These 'reviewists' are there to keep the market keen and hold the interest in the products until the next latest thing comes into their office with a cheque attached.

My original point was aimed at the helpful soul who has travelled the path of confusion I am currently on and would offer assistance and enlightenment to a fellow bird enthuisiast....not growl at him from the safety of his leather recliner!

[nigelblake]

I seem to recall a thread not so long ago where you were doing the very same thing. http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=103067
You fire off a 100 shots on D3 pronounce that all the reviews on this excellent camera must have been carried out by David Blunkett only to get slapped down by a certain Andy Rouse. The words black, kettle and pot spring to mind.

Nothing of the sort, I was basing an oppinion on my experience of using the camera, in the same way that Andy was, and I stand by the comments, and whilst Nikon may have closed the gap a little, there is no comparison to the image quality of the 1Ds MkIII.

[Ian Latham]

This weeks edition (9-16. 01 08) of The British journal of photography has a different oppinion (with two Ps) by Anders Uschold. You wont like his conclusions either Mr Blake.

The words pedestal and climbing down spring to mind!!

[pe'rigin]

This I think is doing a real disservice to people who are trying to form an oppinion on what to spend their hard earned cash on.

I've got to go with NB on this.

Having spent all my working life in Advertising, black, kettle and pot certainly could be directed at me. But, people are influence in purchasing cameras in various ways, the power of advertising, peer pressure, latest models syndrome, brand snobbery etc, etc.

We almost have a cartel alliance forming between Nikon and Canon where they take it in turns to launch the new products on the market, maximising their returns.

Unless you have oodles of cash to splash, as consumers we have to be more realistic of our requirements and talent. An expensive camera certainly doesn’t mean you’re a competent photogragher.

If I was a Canon user and purchased the Mk III @ £3000, I would be fuming that they launched the 40D two months later at £700. I was equally annoyed about the Nikon’s chairman statement that their new range of lenses is going to be aimed at the pro user section then I see the retail prices.

[nigelblake]

This weeks edition (9-16. 01 08) of The British journal of photography has a different oppinion (with two Ps) by Anders Uschold. You wont like his conclusions either Mr Blake.

The words pedestal and climbing down spring to mind!!

You would do well to spell check your own posts before picking others up on their spelling Ian, the word is reviewers and fulfils has just the one L!

However the point of my comment in the first place, which clearly you have taken personally enough to respond with personal attacks, was, had you used the Nikon equipment which had, in your words, "kicked ass" ! clearly from your response you have not, thus proving my point!

The rest of my post was a generalised comment that there are allot of armchair experts on the internet who pontificate about cameras and lenses that they have never used.

[nigelblake]

I've got to go with NB on this.
If I was a Canon user and purchased the Mk III @ £3000, I would be fuming that they launched the 40D two months later at £700. I was equally annoyed about the Nikon’s chairman statement that their new range of lenses is going to be aimed at the pro user section then I see the retail prices.

I have to agree here too, I think that £3K would be better invested on two 40D bodies and a couple of different focal length lenses. Having used both of these camera bodies (1D MkIII and 40D) I can see no real difference in the image quality from either, especially when shooting RAW.

[Jaff]

We almost have a cartel alliance forming between Nikon and Canon where they take it in turns to launch the new products on the market, maximising their returns.

It does seem a bit too convenient doesn't it, are we being secretly manipulated by the big two!? :-O

[kcactionphoto]

I did not see where Ian slagged off Nikon or Canon is his posting above. Nikon and Canon are waging a battle of sorts. They both want us all to use their product. The great part is that this drives them to produce better gear that we may have a chance to use. I believe that was Ian's point. Which to choose?


[quote]It does seem a bit too convenient doesn't it, are we being secretly manipulated by the big two!?[\quote]

That's how business works. One plays off the relative success or failure of the other.

[Vectis Birder]

All this 'war' and extreme competitiveness on the parts of Nikon and Canon (the 'big two', it has to be said) is a good thing for us, the consumer. They're constantly trying to outdo each other and this means better products, more products (therefore more choice) and - hopefully - cheaper prices.

As a Nikon user, I hope Canon put out something bigger and better so then Nikon have to reply with something even bigger and better.

I also hope that some of the smaller manufacturers will get in on the act.

[pe'rigin]

That's how business works. One plays off the relative success or failure of the other.

Going to disagree with you on this KC. The business mantra is to control the market share.


If you look at the products launched, each new item interlinks very conveniently with the opposition range between Nikon and Canon.


Nikon has left the bigger sensor market to Canon, has hit us with the very nice full frame D3, just as the 5D is being phased out.

The D300 slots in nicely between the 40D and the wretched MK III.

The D80 will be replaced by the D90.

I would agree will you though if we had more players producing more products (as in the olde days of film cameras), perhaps we would get a better choice.

[geordie graham]

I went out and bought a Pentax K10D after reading a lot of reviews and views mainly of the people on this website.The reasons I bought the Pentax were,

1) After holding both Canon and Nikon equivalents the Pentax felt better in my hands as it was bigger.

2) I have both mobility and balance problems so I thought the Shake Reduction would be a bonus.

3) Having Shake Reduction, when my Bigma arrives on Saturday :t: I hope it makes a difference and it means I wouldn`t have to shell out a lot more for a Nikon or Canon lens with IS.

Whether the pictures I take are better or worse because of the make of camera or because of the pink numpty stood behind the camera, I will post some photo`s so you can decide.There will always be those who prefer one brand to another and will argue their case.As a relative beginner I can only learn from experience.

Graham

[Duke Leto]

Nikon have temporarily filled a gap in the DLSR market with the D300, which has become a sort of 'budget pro camera', slotted in between 'prosumer' and career pro cameras.

None of this is helping my dilemma as a consumer.....I want to upgrade from a Nikon D50 to a useful birding set up between £2/3000 but I don't want to get caught in the crossfire. The D90 is just around the corner so why buy the D80?, the D300 warrants some decent glass which Nikon are short of around the 300/400mm mark.



With such an interesting discussion would be rude not to join in;

Nikon have temporarily filled a gap in the DLSR market with the D300, which has become a sort of 'budget pro camera', slotted in between 'prosumer' and career pro cameras.
The exact same was said for the D200 when it was launched against the D2X, the D2's (inc 200) and D3's (inc 300) are the prosummer - pro range.

I want to upgrade from a Nikon D50 to a useful birding set up between £2/3000 but I don't want to get caught in the crossfire
chose any pro(summer) camera and body from the 40D or D300 upwards and you will get a stunning camera irrespective of which of the big 2 you go with

the D300 warrants some decent glass which Nikon are short of around the 300/400mm mark
What is decent glass? Nikon have a very nice range from 200 - 600 including a 400/2.8 and a vr 200 - 400/4 looking at the images on this and other sites there are stunning images captured on everything from kit lenses to the ultimate in glass, some of my favourite shots were taken on a D70 with an old slow 300mm AF-D lens. I think that technique has a big part to play its not a case of throwing money at the problem (or is that just Chelsea)

Why upgrade, how longs a piece of string? I did from a D70 to the D200 cos I wanted faster more accurate AF and environmentally sealed body so when its wet I don't worry (to much) If I had owned a 350D I would probably using a 30D now, would my pictures be any better or worst? Not at all because the biggest limitation is me, will I ever get out of my equipment photos that justify upgrading - very rarely, most of my picture I am pleased with, the nicer ones I publish on this and my web site and very very occasionally I get one used else where.

I appreciate those on this forum that have the ability to try out equipment and post review comments it helps me consider what i would do if i were in the market for new equipment (or a millionaire) its no different than picking up a magazine out of WH Smiths as it is I originally bought a Nikon because of ergonomics (if it had been for brightness of the viewfinder or smoothness / quietness of the shutter I would have bought a Canon 350D) since then the lenses have grown and unless I win the lottery would not consider a move to another manufacturer irrespective of who on paper wears the crown

Lastly whilst not a dig at the 1DMkIII I read it was voted 7th in the #most heartbreaking gadget of 2007" by wired.com

[Ian Latham]

Is it safe? Has that scary man gone?

Whether these two companies are rivals or partners in crime.... we are their lifes blood, and as such we are the sole reason as to how the modern SLR has evolved. We have moulded what we see in all our cameras....the shape, the size, the feel and just about everything connected with the device........

But thats where the customers involvement ends

Canon and Nikon are long standing, successful businesses that are shrewd enough to realise that if they were to spend their time fighting amongst themselves, there would soon be other companies to step into their shoes and take over the marketplace. So it makes perfect sense to make the public believe they are doing their uppermost to give you the best products possible, therefore each company can do as it does presently.....the cameras just drip off the production line at a slow steady pace, each fulfilling their own little niche. We play the catch up game to stay abreast of the latest technology and they give us just enough to keep us happy in the knowledge we are getting value for our hard earned cash. Cano has one (large) piece of the pie, and Nikon another.... the other companies get the crumbs and are kept at bay.

[Outboard]

I feel that the title of the original post was rather provocative and was bound to cause a strong reaction from both Nikon and Canon camps which is regrettable. They are both great makes of camera and nobody can deny that Canon have certainly had the lead in certain aspects in recent years notably low noise at high ISO. That however has change recently with the introduction of the D300 and the D3 well informed sources indicate that curently Nikon has the lead. Luminous Landscape is one such well informed source and coming from reknowned Canon shooter Michael Reichmann this says an awful lot. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/nikon-d3-d300.shtml
This as I said was a well informed comparison of the new Nikon D300 and D3 not the result of a short session with an unfamiliar camera. Another well informed Canon shooter has this to say regarding the new Nikons. I have been testing the D3 all week and in my opinion it is far better than any of the Canons, and this is from a dedicated Canon pro. The high ISO performance is better IMHO than the 1D MK3, so is the autofocus. The images also have a much better dynamic range, one look at the histograms compared to the 1DS MK3 show that. I have been shooting both cameras alongside each other and I have given up the MK3 as it is too slow to do much. If you want to follow my shooting tests then check out the First Looks on the main Warehouse Express site, sorry but am not allowed to post them here.

I am actually happy that Nikon have done this and really got it right with both the D3 and the D300 as it will hopefully give Canon a kick. It doesn't really matter to me whether people shoot Canon or Nikon as a good photographers can shoot with anything but I am really glad to see that the D3 is now at least on a par with the best Canon has to offer. And Nikon has the 200-400 which is damn attractive for the kind of photography I do. Anyway just wanted to add my 2 1/2 p worth!

While I do prefer Nikon to Canon I am certainly not a Nikon fanboy because I do own a Canon and I will freely admit to lusting after the Canon 1D Mk II, I wouldn't touch a 1D Mk III with a barge pole though and you only have to read threads such as this one to realise that Canon lost a lot of supporters over this as many are now switching to Nikon. It makes for very interesting reading all 80+ pages of it.. http://www.naturescapes.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=103425

[redtail7]

CHINA.... will be the ultimate winner!

[pe'rigin]

Morning Ian,

I don’t think Nigel was having a go at you, the Canon v Nikon debate is an open sore which is well left alone. You just happened to get a broadside.

I think what Nigel was alluding too was a post he wrote a month or two back on the high cost of camera bodies and the how can they keep justifying these high prices?

I feel that as consumers we are being manipulated into paying premium prices by Nikon and Canon, a lot of folk did stretch themselves financially to purchase the Mk III, only to see it dramatically fall in price after two months. I think NB was opening the batting on behalf of these people.

You summed it up perfectly with your post; it’s a very successful marketing strategy.

Whether it’s fair or us being naive, I don’t know.

[Ian Latham]

You're a good man pe'rigin. But it was your freinds gruff approach to the subject and the inference that I was a complete ignoramus that got my hackles up, he also had the bare'facedness to imply that I was in some way longing to get a glimse of his 600mm. ( I'm sorry to disappoint the big guy....but I prefer a tight fish-eye)

[nigelblake]

You're a good man pe'rigin. But it was your freinds gruff approach to the subject and the inference that I was a complete ignoramus that got my hackles up, he also had the bare'facedness to imply that I was in some way longing to get a glimse of his 600mm. ( I'm sorry to disappoint the big guy....but I prefer a tight fish-eye)


Clearly Ian you need to re-read my post to realise that it was a genaralised dig at all the people who continue the utterly pointless Canon v Nikon tosh, which quite frankly gets so tiresome.

I read lots comments on this forum where there is advice dished out about particular equipment by individuals that I know do not own, and have never owned/used the kit that they are slagging off.

Your title "It's War" appeared very much aimed at starting an argumentative thread, hence my harsh response.

[Vectis Birder]

...it was a genaralised dig at all the people who continue the utterly pointless Canon v Nikon tosh, which quite frankly gets so tiresome.


I agree that the whole Canon vs Nikon thing is tiresome. As a Nikon user I think both systems (I've used both in the past) are great and if you have one system, be it Nikon, be it Canon, then there is no need to slag off the other.

[Ian Latham]

Clearly Ian you need to re-read my post to realise that it was a genaralised dig at all the people who continue the utterly pointless Canon v Nikon tosh, which quite frankly gets so tiresome..

I have no need nor wish to read your 'boorish' response to my innocent attempt to start a civilised thread. If you feel so strongly that the subject matter was indeed so pointless and tiresome then may I suggest that you find a thread that interests you.

I read lots comments on this forum where there is advice dished out about particular equipment by individuals that I know do not own, and have never owned/used the kit that they are slagging off.

It's the ''kicked ass'' thing is'nt it? You did'nt like me suggesting that your beloved Canon have been outdone by Nikon! Well!.....

If you are going to get upset over every derisory comment or bad review about equipment that you own!....

Your title "It's War" appeared very much aimed at starting an argumentative thread, hence my harsh response

So a title can invoke your sensitive nature into the need for an argument? (Hmmm!) It seems to me that we all have watch our 'P's & 'Q's on this forum just in case we hit one of your delicate nerves! Perhaps our opinions should be best kept to ourselves and we should never buy anything other than a superior brand of camera such as Canon so obviously is!!

[rioja]

It's a shame Canon lenses won't work on Nikon cameras and vice versa. That might change a few opinions, after all this illogical brand loyalty is often in defence of a considerably costly investment decision the buyer has made. Few people want to admit to having made the wrong one and are stuck down that road.
As for the manufacturers, they don't have loyalties. They just want you to part with your cash.

[Jaff]

It's a shame Canon lenses won't work on Nikon cameras and vice versa. That might change a few opinions, after all this illogical brand loyalty is often in defence of a considerably costly investment decision the buyer has made. Few people want to admit to having made the wrong one and are stuck down that road.
As for the manufacturers, they don't have loyalties. They just want you to part with your cash.

Well it's funny you say that cos I believe once upon a time there was an adapter that allowed just that, I know I've seen it somewhere but can't remember where, not much help am I. :-O Maybe someone else does?

As for the whole brand thing, neither one is 'better' than the other, whichever setup you choose it is easily capable of giving you an excellent photo when all the elements (light, distance etc.) come together. I do think it's just swings and roundabouts (ironic coming from me I know).
Jaff

[a.dancy]

I have no need nor wish to read your 'boorish' response to my innocent attempt to start a civilised thread. !

Ian

With respect I find it hard to reconcile the title of your thread "IT'S WAR" with your assertion that you are making an "innocent attempt to start a civilised thread". I cannot think of a more emotionally charged comment than saying "IT'S WAR". In my view your thread title exhibits a bit of the tabloid or football supporter mentality that lurks within many, no worries it's human 3:-). I'm sorry but I do think your response is a little disingenuous.

It isn't war it's business ...pure and simple and we as consumers should just sit back and enjoy the benefits of good healthy competition.

As for the discussion Nikon v Canon it is, as I indicated, or alluded to in my other thread, a totally pointless debate and I think you will find that Nigel Blake an Andy Rouse are at idium on that...end of story. You might also consider that both these photographers in delivering their opinions have not specifically locked on specific issues to indicate any broad level of disagreement as you imply there is, which only serves to confuse matters for the buying public and runs a coach and horses through the argument you are trying to make. Of course it may remain that there is broad disagreement between Nigel and Andy although I doubt it. If you were trying to be reasonable you may have spotted that issues were covered from different perspectives and from that point of view you could have asked questions from Nigel or Andy to clarify. I imagine that if both photographers did some shooting of the same subject matter in identical circumstances using the same settings etc. and compared and contrasted their results there would be little argument between them....however that is a matter for them. If you read the threads properly you will find different conclusions about different things IMHO. Remember, some matters in photography are subjective and others can be measured.

From my own perspective and in my humble opinion what makes a quality photo has little to do with gear these days, most modern gear can produce outstanding results, it's the photographer that makes the biggest difference. All this stuff about image noise etc is all well and good but it's not going to make me chuck in my battered old 20D just because there is a "war" on between Nikon and Canon. When the time comes for me to get new gear I will of course read reviews (with half a mind on the reviewers interests/bias)and ask questions examine evidence, test equipment and then MAKE MY OWN MIND UP.8-P

In reading blurb on new eqiupment I always remind myself of the "emperors new clothes" we can learn much from such fairy tales. Don't get sucked in.

ps. You might also remember that Nigel Blake has frequently given his time on these forums in open debate and in PMs and offered excellent advice (of a kind you don't always get in books) in a manner which has served to improve the level of photography of a great many members including myself and we are all grateful to him for that. Being on top of the tree often brings with it a condition of not suffering fools gladly. I am not suggesting you are a fool but I think a certain level of respect can go a long way. Your true intent may be measured by your reply...if you choose to reply.

pps The best and most honest review of equipment (that is easily obtained) is usually made by the manufacturer when it is being replaced!!! ....well that's what I think 3:-)

Regards

Adrian

[Ian Latham]

Ian Latham;1098881]

None of this is helping my dilemma as a consumer.....I want to upgrade from a Nikon D50 to a useful birding set up between £2/3000 but I dont want to get caught in the crossfire. The D90 is just around the corner so why buy the D80?, the D300 warrants some decent glass which Nikon are short of around the 300/400mm mark.

Canon seem to have the best, and (judging from this forums gallery) the most popular set up with the 40D and a fare selection of good lenses around the £1000 mark (within budget)

This extract from my original thread opener was the basis for what I hoped would be a discussion about the merits of the new 40D from Canon with its range of 300mm-400mm lenses, and the lack of the equivalent lenses from Nikon.

I must point out that I bought my D50 after trying out the product with a comparison to the canon 400D from Jessops. I had no prior knowledge of digital cameras, but a much practiced mistrust of salespersons. When the salesman seemed to be heading in the direction of overkill for the Canon system (which was approximately £100 more than the Nikon), I bid him farewell and headed off to purchase the Nikon from another store.

I am the only person within my family and circle of friends who has ever been remotely interested in birdwatching or indeed photography, so having the ability to test either of these hobbies products has had to rely on retail outlets. The birding products are quite accessable for me, because I live close to both (In Focus) Martin Mere and (RSPB) Leighton Moss so I am able to get a hands on the gear and some decent advice into the bargain.

The camera world is (to me) a lot less helpful. I can of course purchase 'On Line', but I cannot test the product before I hand over my wad. My home is far from accident proof with two mad cats, hoards of drunken women coming and going etc, etc. If something gets broken then I'm either stuck with it or going to have to deal with the insurance sharks!

So my options are narrowed to the retail outlets.

I went into Jessops today to view the 40D and the 100-400mm lens (advertised within 'Amateur photographer'as being in stock). The 40D was there but the assistant tells me that only their larger city outlets keep the bigger, more expensive lenses to view (Preston needs a cathederal!)

I decided I had come this far and asked to hold and view the camera....off he went to find a key to the cabinet, which took 15 minutes because the manager had the only key and was'nt to be found. Finally, I was tentatively handed the 40D and I proceeded to give it the once over......it was noticably larger camera than my D50 but seemed well balanced, I tryed to imagine a bigger lens attached than the 17-85mm kit but with my largest lens being a 90mm macro I really could'nt get a fair comparison.

I remembered that one of the more consistant quibbles regarding the comparison with the Nikon D300 was that the LCD - though increased a 1/2 inch from the previous model (30D) had not increased in resolution. I asked the assistant to switch the camera on for me so as to check out the camera further (layout, AF etc). ''Oh, I'm sorry sir but we dont keep batteries in the cameras'' (no explaination as to why was forthcoming). I asked if they had any in the shop to put in, and away he went.........never to be seen again, because after ten minutes I was out of there!! (sure, I could have waited a futher ten minutes or even twenty but hey! lifes way to short!)

I rang around the remaining smaller outlets only to be told the same old story, that the products only achieve minimal profit and therefore not a viable stock item (all these little shops were Canon dealerships, just out of interest!).

My quest then continues......:-C

Any genuine advice will be gratefully appreciated (no trolls or hi-jackers please)

[Hugh Harrop]

If I was a Canon user and purchased the Mk III @ £3000, I would be fuming that they launched the 40D two months later at £700.

Might I ask why? Have you used a 1D Mark III vs a 40D?? I guess not.

Cheers

HH

[a.dancy]

This extract from my original thread opener was the basis for what I hoped would be a discussion about the merits of the new 40D from Canon with its range of 300mm-400mm lenses, and the lack of the equivalent lenses from Nikon.

I must point out that I bought my D50 after trying out the product with a comparison to the canon 400D from Jessops. I had no prior knowledge of digital cameras, but a much practiced mistrust of salespersons. When the salesman seemed to be heading in the direction of overkill for the Canon system (which was approximately £100 more than the Nikon), I bid him farewell and headed off to purchase the Nikon from another store.

I am the only person within my family and circle of friends who has ever been remotely interested in birdwatching or indeed photography, so having the ability to test either of these hobbies products has had to rely on retail outlets. The birding products are quite accessable for me, because I live close to both (In Focus) Martin Mere and (RSPB) Leighton Moss so I am able to get a hands on the gear and some decent advice into the bargain.

The camera world is (to me) a lot less helpful. I can of course purchase 'On Line', but I cannot test the product before I hand over my wad. My home is far from accident proof with two mad cats, hoards of drunken women coming and going etc, etc. If something gets broken then I'm either stuck with it or going to have to deal with the insurance sharks!

So my options are narrowed to the retail outlets.

I went into Jessops today to view the 40D and the 100-400mm lens (advertised within 'Amateur photographer'as being in stock). The 40D was there but the assistant tells me that only their larger city outlets keep the bigger, more expensive lenses to view (Preston needs a cathederal!)

I decided I had come this far and asked to hold and view the camera....off he went to find a key to the cabinet, which took 15 minutes because the manager had the only key and was'nt to be found. Finally, I was tentatively handed the 40D and I proceeded to give it the once over......it was noticably larger camera than my D50 but seemed well balanced, I tryed to imagine a bigger lens attached than the 17-85mm kit but with my largest lens being a 90mm macro I really could'nt get a fair comparison.

I remembered that one of the more consistant quibbles regarding the comparison with the Nikon D300 was that the LCD - though increased a 1/2 inch from the previous model (30D) had not increased in resolution. I asked the assistant to switch the camera on for me so as to check out the camera further (layout, AF etc). ''Oh, I'm sorry sir but we dont keep batteries in the cameras'' (no explaination as to why was forthcoming). I asked if they had any in the shop to put in, and away he went.........never to be seen again, because after ten minutes I was out of there!! (sure, I could have waited a futher ten minutes or even twenty but hey! lifes way to short!)

I rang around the remaining smaller outlets only to be told the same old story, that the products only achieve minimal profit and therefore not a viable stock item (all these little shops were Canon dealerships, just out of interest!).

My quest then continues......:-C

Any genuine advice will be gratefully appreciated (no trolls or hi-jackers please)


I occasionally go to Martin Mere but do not have a 40D but have friends who do. I only have a 20D. I do have a 100-400 canon zoom. Since you are placed in a dilema and provided you can be patient I would be more than happy to let you test out my gear if we were to meet up. I am sure, or I would hope that with such a request you would get assistance with those who use Nikon gear. I will ask around.

I also worry about my gear. I live in Salford!

The next time I visit Martin Mere I will send you a PM if you wish to take me up on the offer.

regards

Adrian

[pduxon]

I really don't understand this rush to defend the system you bought. Both Nikon and Canon make fine cameras and lenses. Competition is healthy! Then again I think it was a Canon President who said the various companies adherents were like football fans.

Ian there is a chance that Nikon will introduce a new version of the 80-400mm VR this year possibly at the PMA event in January. Of course this has been mooted for a while. I shot with the existing 80-400vr a few weeks ago and it is a decent lens.

if you elect to go for a 40d /100-400 IS set up then I'm sure you won't be disappointed.

FWIW the Nikon 300mm f4 is a fine lens. in need of VR though.

[bkrownd]

Ah, but those rare moments don't return for a second chance at them. We "upgrade" at a reasonable pace so that we don't miss that split second of opportunity when it arrives. If the elusive critters sat around on fence posts posing for the camera in the warm rays of sunset, much money would be saved. ;) Instead it's skulking around in the shadows under the trees with our $$$ 400mm, ISO 800, VR, and the best hardware our paychecks can provide. :D

(hmm...the post I was responding to disappeared...nice owl, anyhow)

[bkrownd]

I also hope that some of the smaller manufacturers will get in on the act.

Definitely, but who's most likely to do it? Pentax? Panasonic? (gasp) Sony? (ack!) Do any of them really care much about this market, when the easy cash is mostly on the point-n-shoot end.

[Leif]

I have just read Nigel Blake's response, and IMO it does sound rather harsh. That said, the original posting is a bit juvenile. (Sorry Ian.)


Now that I have possibly alienated at least two forum members - though I hope not - I'll try and provide an answer.


Having owned a D200 for 2 years now, and previously owned mostly consumer grade bodies (D70, F90x, F80, etc), the move to a semi-pro grade body is more than just specs. The view finder is better, the build is better, and there are essential features such as mirror lock up, which you never knew you needed. I would never again buy a camera without MLU, which is essential for macro work, photomicrography (photography through a microscope) and so on. So my personal decision would be to go for a proper metal body camera with MLU.

I suppose it depends on what you want to achieve. £2-3K is a lot of money. And you can get fairly serious kit for that amount. Though I am a Nikon user, it pains me to say that Canon is probably better value for birding, at least in the low end. They have the brilliant 40D, and the 400mm F5.6 IS lens, which has no Nikon equivalent. The D80 is a well made camera, but plastic, and without MLU. Maybe the D80 works well for birds. A user would have to tell you, not me.

With luck some Nikon bird photographers can weigh in and make some sensible suggestions for kit, and then you can evaluate their answers. Maybe the D200 and 80-400mm zoom would do the business. Or maybe the focus is too slow? Hopefully someone will know.

My key interests are macro, and plants, not birds. Hence I don't want to give bad advice. (Or Uncle Nige' will sort me out. Eeek. |=)| ).

[a.dancy]

Ah, but those rare moments don't return for a second chance at them. We "upgrade" at a reasonable pace so that we don't miss that split second of opportunity when it arrives. If the elusive critters sat around on fence posts posing for the camera in the warm rays of sunset, much money would be saved. ;) Instead it's $$$, 400mm, ISO 800, VR, and the best hardware our paychecks can provide. :D

(hmm...the post I was responding to disappeared...nice owl, anyhow)

Sorry about that bkrownd, as you might have gathered for some reason the link did not work though clearly you it did for you? I still believe that great photos exist with what may be considered to be, by todays standards, substandered equipment. It is the photographer that makes the difference. Nigel Blake, Andy Rouse or Hughe Harrop (nice work Hughe) will pull off better stuff than me if I had a Mk111Ds and they had a box camera! Like I once said , I'm not chucking in my 20D till the red light dies like Arnie's eye in terminator. I don't think Canon or Nikon will go bust waiting for me either.o:D

[bkrownd]

With luck some Nikon bird photographers can weigh in and make some sensible suggestions for kit, and then you can evaluate their answers. Maybe the D200 and 80-400mm zoom would do the business. Or maybe the focus is too slow? Hopefully someone will know.

Since I don't try to track moving stuff I'd put my money into a more sensitive AF sensor first, rather than a faster AF motor. I'm fine with the AF motor speed as-is - my problem is almost always when autofocus flies by the subject on its way from one limit to the other.

[bkrownd]

Sorry about that bkrownd, as you might have gathered for some reason the link did not work though clearly you it did for you?

There were a couple misplaced "." that I edited out.

If the old camera still makes ya happy, you're a fortunate guy. :king: They always make good second bodies to carry your shorter lenses, as well.

[Vectis Birder]

Definitely, but who's most likely to do it? Pentax? Panasonic? (gasp) Sony? (ack!) Do any of them really care much about this market, when the easy cash is mostly on the point-n-shoot end.

Hmm, to be honest, I'd actually not considered the point and shoot end of the camera market. Good point.

This is a very interesting thread, by the way. As a Nikon user, I see Ian's point about the lenses but is it worth changing systems when, as it was pointed out to me on another thread (about the new Nikon 400, 500 and 600mm lenses) that the Nikon D200 and D300 can take the older AI/S lenses and these are superb glass and can be got for reasonable money second hand. Ok there's no autofocusing but metering is still there. That's what I'm going to do when I can afford it and find some for sale.

[ikw101]

None of this is helping my dilemma as a consumer.....I want to upgrade from a Nikon D50 to a useful birding set up between £2/3000 but I dont want to get caught in the crossfire. The D90 is just around the corner so why buy the D80?, the D300 warrants some decent glass which Nikon are short of around the 300/400mm mark.

Canon seem to have the best, and (judging from this forums gallery) the most popular set up with the 40D and a fare selection of good lenses around the £1000 mark (within budget).

Whats next............anyone got a crystal ball?

Well hopefully at the end of this month Nikon will be making a few announcements:

A replacement for the D80? 12Mpix with perhaps more importantly the same sensor as the D300.

An updated 300/4 complete with VR II

An updated 80-400mm zoom with VR II and AF-S

An autofocus 400mm f5.6 complete with VR II and AF-S

Whilst we can all dream in the meantime Canon have released the 40D and have the equivalent of all the above lenses available now. Unless Nikon announce the D80 replacement and the VR II enabled 300/4 at the end of the month I fear it's time to switch allegiance to the dark side (the white side just doesn't sound the same 3:-) )

The 40D and before it the 30D set-up complete with Canon's wider range of glass around the 400mm mark is as you correctly pointed out very popular for bird and wildlife photography. If Nikon choose not to update their 300/4, 80-400 or bring out a 400/5.6 I think it'll be safe to assume they've abandoned this niche market.

Depending upon the lenses you use with the D50 I think you're going to have to make a difficult choice. Personally I'm not convinced about VR/IS/OS etc..and would prefer to gain 2 or 3 stops through the use of a noise free sensor. Therefore I'd be prepared to wait and see how good the D80 replacement is. If it can produce detailed noise free images at ISO 800 the dark side may have to wait.

Based upon what is available now the best value for money is the 40D with either the Canon 300/4 IS and TC if you're mainly hand-holding or the 400/5.6 if you're happy to use a monopod/occasional hand holding.

BTW -during the last century an estimated 103,000,000 people were killed in conflict. Perhaps the title of this thread is a little over the top?

[Ian Latham]

[QUOTE=Leif;1101580]I have just read Nigel Blake's response, and IMO it does sound rather harsh. That said, the original posting is a bit juvenile. (Sorry Ian.)

There is no need to be sorry, you're quite right Leif!

It was meant as a light hearted approach to attract the attention of any passerby who cared to comment on the issue I originally raised. Which was about the lack of lens choices available to the Nikon system for the 'amateur' birding photographer with the budget I had stated.

If I need remind anyone that this is a forum for birding enthuisiasts and as such am highly unlikely to use the word 'war' other than in the context of 'a long continued struggle' within a thread written about my plight to test equipment I am willing to part with £2000 for.

The 'War' is between myself and the two major camera companies, that seem intent on offering the Amateur as little as possible as I have mentioned earlier on this thread.

[Ian Latham]

I am afraid I will have to decline your kind offer as I am very busy and would currently find it near impossible to co-ordinate. Thanx anyway!! :t:

What little leisure time I do have is spent with my family and friends who live in and around the Salford area.(I also worry about my gear. I live in Salford! regards Adrian) :eek!:

My father is retired now so he enjoys the family get togethers. He was unable to see much of us when he worked in London (for the 'News of the World') On those days when we are all together we like to go and watch the 'footie' up at 'Old Trafford'.(In my view your thread title exibits a bit of the tabloid or football supporter mentality that lurks within many, no worries it's human.) :eek!:

[Doug Greenberg]

Your title "It's War" appeared very much aimed at starting an argumentative thread, hence my harsh response.

Frankly, the very title "It's War," along with the tone of Ian's original post, made it abundantly clear (to me, anyway) that it was NOT his intent to start an argument, only to invite speculation as to what kinds of "volleys" to expect from each company in the near and distant future. Innocent enough, I think.

As for the high cost of the newer premium camera bodies, I hate to see myself in the position of defending megacorporations, but I invite anyone to compare, side by side, the feature set and overall engineering of a new say, D300 or D3 and a much older "premium" camera like a Nikon F/FtN. The difference is astonishing; we've come to take for granted the engineering marvels that these companies are able to create. Consider the amount of research and development that goes into each new innovation, not to mention the incorporation of these into a single, ergonomically pleasing camera body. And on top of that, the product half-life of each new camera is increasingly brief!

So whereas I wince at what happens to my bank account when I shell out for a newer and better camera, I actually don't begrudge Nikon (or Canon) the income that I pass on to them.

[Geoff Brown]

This little "war" whether to buy Canon or Nikon is why the consumer society was invented.

[Ian Latham]

Frankly, the very title "It's War," along with the tone of Ian's original post, made it abundantly clear (to me, anyway) that it was NOT his intent to start an argument, only to invite speculation as to what kinds of "volleys" to expect from each company in the near and distant future. Innocent enough, I think.

Thankyou kindly Mr Greenberg.

I have read today that Nikon is expected to be the market leader for 2007. This is obviously going to mean that Canon and and the other camera manufacturers are going to have to up the ante for 2008, which will make for a very interesting time for 'enthuisiasts'.

I myself am going to have to make a purchase regardless of what is around the corner! I am eager to get a system together for birding/wildlife photography in time for spring.

I would really of liked to stay with Nikon but the lenses I was anticipating (the new 400, 500 and 600mm) are way beyond my 'hobby' budget....... A (soon to recieve) Kowa scope has to be added to the equation, and I also have other interests that cost a small fortune!

So 'in effect' my war with Canon and Nikon is nearly over (unless Nikon sneak a D90 or a decent 400mm for under a grand in before my prospective purchase)

There will of course be other wars to battle within the realms of the photography world, and I am fairly certain that as long as we are all happy with the products.........we are all winners!!:t:

[Jaff]

I occasionally go to Martin Mere but do not have a 40D but have friends who do. I only have a 20D. I do have a 100-400 canon zoom. Since you are placed in a dilema and provided you can be patient I would be more than happy to let you test out my gear if we were to meet up. I am sure, or I would hope that with such a request you would get assistance with those who use Nikon gear. I will ask around.

I also worry about my gear. I live in Salford!

The next time I visit Martin Mere I will send you a PM if you wish to take me up on the offer.

regards

Adrian

Hey, don't forget to include me too! :king:

As a photographer (I use the term very loosely) who recently switched brands I'll show you an excerpt from a Pm I sent recently that explains the decision :-

If it wasn't for this bloody forum I wouldn't even have given a moments thought to photography never mind shelling out well over a grand on upgrading and switching brands!

In an ideal world I'd have personally stayed with Nikon, their cameras always seem to be just one step ahead I think, but I just don't feel their affordable good glass is comparable to Canon's. You either have to choose between having VR or fast focussing, you shouldn't have to compromise your choice because they haven't pulled their finger out.

Anyway there we go, I'm sure I'l have no regrets unless they suddenly do decide to right the wrongs, they've sorted out the professional end and they're strong in the beginner market.....

So that's my situation, I'm sure many others have been or will be in the same dilemna and may do it completely differently but that's the way I did it and I stand by it, despite seeing since a second-hand Nikon fit 300mm F4 for sale at a rather attractive price.
Jaff

[Ian Latham]

If it wasn't for this bloody forum I wouldn't even have given a moments thought to photography never mind shelling out well over a grand on upgrading and switching brands!

In an ideal world I'd have personally stayed with Nikon, their cameras always seem to be just one step ahead I think, but I just don't feel their affordable good glass is comparable to Canon's. You either have to choose between having VR or fast focussing, you shouldn't have to compromise your choice because they haven't pulled their finger out.

Anyway there we go, I'm sure I'l have no regrets unless they suddenly do decide to right the wrongs, they've sorted out the professional end and they're strong in the beginner market.....

So that's my situation, I'm sure many others have been or will be in the same dilemna and may do it completely differently but that's the way I did it and I stand by it, despite seeing since a second-hand Nikon fit 300mm F4 for sale at a rather attractive price.
Jaff

Strangely enough my friend......this thread is all your fault.

I noticed in a thread that you were a regular visitor to one of my haunts (Martin Mere) so I decided to check out your gallery. I was 'reasonably' (let's not go overboard) impressed with the close up of the pigeon (taken with the Canon set up) and having looked on the next page I came across the mallards close up (taken with the Nikon D80). To my eyes there was a difference in quality that made me set off on a 4 hour quest to study various other folks photos with similar set ups.

I did it again the next night (with fresh eyes) and reached the same conclusion.....

It was'nt the cameras that were getting these results.....

If a Nikon D80 was used with say a 300mm ED G IF VR f/2.8 (£3300 approx) or say a 200-400mm ED G IF VR f/4 (£4600 approx) then the Canon 30D was getting the same results with the 400mm L USM f/5.6 (£980 approx) or the 100-400mm L IS USM f/4.5-5.6 (£1000 approx)

You are looking at a price difference of (for a set up to give similar quality results)....... £2000 - £3500 approx (about the same price as the Canon EOS-ID MK III or a Nikon D3)

It does'nt take a rocket scientist to work out where the 'smart money' is???

Thanks Jaff :t:

[Duke Leto]

Sorry I might be misunderstanding the last post, but are you saying that to get the same from a Canon D40 and a 400mm lens you have to by a Nikon SLR and a Nikon lens @ £5000 yeah right.............................. this thread has lost the plot

[nigelblake]

Sorry I might be misunderstanding the last post, but are you saying that to get the same from a Canon D40 and a 400mm lens you have to by a Nikon SLR and a Nikon lens @ £5000 yeah right.............................. this thread has lost the plot


I can only agree with your comments here Steve.

I think the chances of assessing the qualities of images from various body/lens combinations by looking at the BF gallery photos are very slim when you take into account the following factors :- They will have been resized, compressed, cropped (or not), leveled and sharpened to different amounts in different software, by people with vastly different processing abilities.

[Ian Latham]

How does the Canon 300mm L IS USM f/4 compare to the Nikon 300mm D ED IF f/4

or the......

Canon 400mm L USM f/5.6 compare to the Nikon 80-400mm D ED VR f4.5-5.6

and the difference is £4000 not £5000

[Leif]

Ian: One point to note is that you should not automatically assume that the old screw driver focus lenses are slow. I recently read accounts on Photo Net where some Nikon users reported FASTER focussing with non AFS lenses compared to Canon ultrasonic lenses. It depends on the lens, and the camera. I think you need to find out from a user how the 80-400 lens performs on a D300 for example. The D300 will be below £1000 in a few months IMO. Some reports of the D300 focus are very favourable, but with all these things, you need to know whose report you can trust. There are some user reports on Nikon Cafe too. I suspect the focus is not so good on a D200, but I do not know. I used a Sigma 400mm F5.6 Apo Macro on a D200, and it was fine for tracking ducks on a lake, even nearby, but not so good for Red Kites in flight, as it would lose the subject. But I ain't no bird photographer.

But yes the Nikon range is more limited in the budget long end. No 300mm F4 VR AFS. No 400mm F5.6 VR.

[Leif]

How does the Canon 300mm L IS USM f/4 compare to the Nikon 300mm D ED IF f/4

or the......

Canon 400mm L USM f/5.6 compare to the Nikon 80-400mm D ED VR f4.5-5.6

and the difference is £4000 not £5000

One place to get some idea if www.PhotoZone.de. Although it is not valid to compare lens tests across brands, you can still work out which lenses are decent and which less so. But bear in mind that he tests usually just one sample of a lens, and sample variation exists. Still, he does check for centering issues.

[Ian Latham]

Thanks Leif.......

Firstly, I've been on to that site for about a year checking the lenses out.

Also, I have based all this around my original budget of £2-3000 (this will not increase no matter what). I have also taken into account the accessories such as memory cards, batteries etc.

So the best package for birding with either the 300mm or 400mm, and getting the best all round quality is with the Canon set up.

[Neil]

Having just upgraded from the D2x to the D3 I now understand what people are saying about leveling the playing field. I was never happy with the performance of the D2x on fast moving subjects (eg warblers feeding, ducks in flight ), especially with a 1.4x tele on. Now I have the 1.4x tele on full time and I'm able to get shots that I couldn't get before.
We had a peregrine flyby at a popular spot last week where there were 5 others with pro gear (mostly Canon ) and I was the only one to get any frames (2).
I'm sure about the IQ comparisons, but the D3 is the pro DSLR that I've been waiting for ever since I bought the Nikon E3 in 1998. Neil.

ps I'm using the Nikon 300/f4 AFS and 300/2.8 AFS VR plus Nikon TC-14E II 1.4x Auto Focus Teleconverter

[pe'rigin]

If I was a Canon user and purchased the Mk III @ £3000, I would be fuming that they launched the 40D two months later at £700.

Might I ask why? Have you used a 1D Mark III vs a 40D?? I guess not.

Cheers

HH

Just a reply to Hugh, yes I have, and I have also commissioned professional photographers who have used both so I’m in a very good position to judge, because I have to pay for these images and produce something from them.

For the professionals I couldn’t careless what camera they turn up with, one job pays for their camera. The majority I deal with use Hasselblads, and wouldn’t soil their hands on a DSLR. They earn a very good living, so I have little sympathy for them.

The point I was making was the value for money aspect for the rest of us, the Mk III was marketed on it being “the best camera in the world’ headline, it’s not, and no way is it £2300 better than the 40D.

Ordinary people were seduced into spending £3000 on a very clever marketing strategy, fine if you have the cash, great if you are a professional, write it off as a capital expense and claim back the VAT. Canon don’t make duff cameras, the MK III is a very good, but over-priced camara.

[Jaff]

It seems to me the thread title you were looking for was "I've got £2-3000, which way should I go?" or something similar.
You cannot compare the pictures I took of the pigeon and mallards. One done with an £800+ lens (and my first go with a camera I'd never even used before!) and one done with an older model Sigma that cost £300 when it was new. Plus the pigeon is virtually full frame and the mallards a considerably heavier crop. I agree with what Nigel said in that do not compare photos taken in the gallery as there are too many variables to name.

It is the glass that makes the photo sharp and the camera improves the % of keepers I believe, could be wrong though as I freely admit that my experience is limited to say the least, I've only been going since April.

Just making my meager contribution.
Jaff

[Duke Leto]

So the best package for birding with either the 300mm or 400mm, and getting the best all round quality is with the Canon set up.

Ian, looking forward to seeing the results with the "ultimate" package. IHMO 300mm is a tad short for birding (come to that 400mm might also be a tad restrictive) or does he budget include a 1.4TC?

Leif, spot on re the older lenses, I miss my old 300mm IF-ED, to this day I still reckon it gave better results than my AF-S 300mm (and didn't fail after 14mths). Why did I swap? so I only needed on TC in the bag not 2.

[rezMole]

One thing I can never understand is people going out and buying a "cheap" Canon body as opposed to a "cheap" Nikon body because they are told that Canon glass is better and a bit cheaper. Then these people go out and buy a Sigma or Tamron lens. I count myself in this group. I went with Nikon because the cheapest body at the time felt better to me than what Canon had to offer for the same price. I knew that I'd never be able to afford a "serious" Canon OR Nikon lens so it made no difference to me what their expensive glass was like.

I'm quite happy with my Sigma 500mm f4.5. That took me two years to save up for - even secondhand!

Nikon or Canon - there really isn't much difference. Both have some good points and some bad. If one was significantly worse than the other, one would be out of business by now.

Actually, Nikon cameras are far better. Why? Because they have a nice bit of red on the casing.

[mark richards]

me myself, nikon user. spent months reading mags looking in shops, trying out all makes cameras. went for nikon ,why! because i think nikon looks after they're customers more,
not three months down the road, bringing out new cameras ,or is it canon users have bigger wallets,and smaller brains...!

[Hugh Harrop]

me myself, nikon user. spent months reading mags looking in shops, trying out all makes cameras. went for nikon ,why! because i think nikon looks after they're customers more,
not three months down the road, bringing out new cameras ,or is it canon users have bigger wallets,and smaller brains...!

God, this thread gets even worse. This particular post from a Nikon user is about as clear as mud - and hilariously, it implies that Canon users are the ones with small brains.

If you are swayed to buy a Nikon by reading this diatribe then good luck to you - at least Canon users have brains, albeit small, (according to to Mr Richards..)

HH

[Vectis Birder]

not three months down the road, bringing out new cameras ,or is it canon users have bigger wallets,and smaller brains...!


Hmmm, that's a more than a tad insulting - and I am a Nikon user myself. It comes down to personal preference in the end. I use Nikon because I have used them for years but maybe I'd have gone for Canon when I went digital if I hadn't already been in possession of Nikon lenses. All this squabbling between the two camps is so much bollocks.

Anyway, it's not what (system) you've got it's how you use it.

[nigelblake]

went for nikon ,why! because i think nikon looks after they're customers more,

I buy my equipment based on how well the ergonomics suit my shooting needs and the quality of the results, irrespective of the name on it.
Just when this thread was starting to look as if there was some constructive debate developing and now its gone back to the childish "Nikon - Canon mines best" twaddle.

[Hugh Harrop]

I buy my equipment based on how well the ergonomics suit my shooting needs and the quality of the results, irrespective of the name on it.
Just when this thread was starting to look as if there was some constructive debate developing and now its gone back to the childish "Nikon - Canon mines best" twaddle.

Started by Nikon users slating Canon users, I might add.

[Vectis Birder]

Started by Nikon users slating Canon users, I might add.

Does it matter who started it? I wish everyone would grow up a bit - I assume we are all adults here.

[Ian Latham]

It seems to me the thread title you were looking for was "I've got £2-3000, which way should I go?" or something similar.
You cannot compare the pictures I took of the pigeon and mallards. One done with an £800+ lens (and my first go with a camera I'd never even used before!) and one done with an older model Sigma that cost £300 when it was new. Plus the pigeon is virtually full frame and the mallards a considerably heavier crop. I agree with what Nigel said in that do not compare photos taken in the gallery as there are too many variables to name.

It is the glass that makes the photo sharp and the camera improves the % of keepers I believe, could be wrong though as I freely admit that my experience is limited to say the least, I've only been going since April.

Just making my meager contribution.
Jaff


Much apprieciated Jaff........but I did'nt base my analasis soley on your gallery, rather on a great deal of folk who have used a variety of equipment and upgraded or swapped to newer or higher spec equipment within my budget range.

You yourself have moved over form the D80 to the 40D (when it arrives), and I can only assume your reasons were based on something you found lacking in the Nikon system?

My natural choice of upgrade would have been the D80, but it is due for a change (D90) and I am not prepared to hang around waiting for Nikon to decide the 'time slot'. I would have liked a DLSR with the movable live view screen that I figure will be a standard improvement to a lot of future cameras. Maybe this will be an addition to the D90? Who knows? But for now I have tried to assess the best birding set up for ME. Within MY budget.:t:

[Duke Leto]

I buy my equipment based on how well the ergonomics suit my shooting needs and the quality of the results, irrespective of the name on it.


exactly spend your hard earned on what suits you best not because someone told you too, I've always said that I went for Nikon only because the body I bought at the time (D70s) was far more comfortable and easier to use my larger hands (& chubby fingers) than the equivalent Canon the 350D, the Canon had some better points, I liked the smoother and quieter shutter and the viewfinder was brighter, do I regret the path I took, not at all, I enjoy my photography, as much as I did when I had a Zenit then a Pentax and then Contax SLR's, just pre marriage and children I found it easier to change....................

[Duke Leto]

You yourself have moved over form the D80 to the 40D (when it arrives), and I can only assume your reasons were based on something you found lacking in the Nikon system?

Ian not a fair comparison horse for courses, the 40D should be compared with the D200 (or even the D300)

My natural choice of upgrade would have been the D80, but it is due for a change (D90) and I am not prepared to hang around waiting for Nikon to decide the 'time slot'. I would have liked a DLSR with the movable live view screen that I figure will be a standard improvement to a lot of future cameras. Maybe this will be an addition to the D90? Who knows? But for now I have tried to assess the best birding set up for ME. Within MY budget.:t:

If I had £2000, I would be tempted to buy a Nikon D300 (£1050) a Batt Pack & Vert Grip (£200 and 8 fps) and then either a Tamron 200-500 or look out for a bargain online you could get a Sigma 500/4.5 for around £1100, okay with the 500mm it busts the budget

[a.dancy]

Oh dear, we have gone off the rails again. Unfortunately Ian no one can make a decision for you but I wish you luck with the decision you finally come to make.

[a.dancy]

me myself, ........smaller brains...!

'Me myself' is a tautology!....meaning needless repetion,something which seems apparant in this thread...?

Error spotted by a Canon user obviously with no brain.3:-)

AD

[pe'rigin]

Just in an attempt to get us back on thread, because I agree with NB we have a good debate going. It makes a change to have an open discussion on an interesting topic, instead of endless repeats of taping the pins and crop factors.

Doug wrote about the R&D side of manufacture, I partly agree with him for the justification of the high costs, but if you look at Canon and to a lesser extent Nikon, they have both tinkered with slight modifications, but still charged top price for the replacement.

I feel we pay high prices to sustain a booming second hand market for both brands.


On who is best, I don’t know, because we are still awaiting the ‘burning bush’ experience from both Canon and Nikon.

[mark richards]

canon users get off our sub forums. and use your own..!

[Leif]

or is it canon users have bigger wallets,and smaller brains...!

Now maybe I'm wrong, but there might be something contentious in your posting. Give me a while and I'll figure out what it was.

I don't understand why someone needs to push a brand. That's for the marketing wonks to do surely? Cameras are tools, that's all.

I don't think anyone can argue that Canon do have some advantages for birding. They have had IS lenses for ages, so chances are you could pick up a decent used 500mm F4 IS at a bargain price. Could you do the same for a Nikon 500mm F4 VR? No. So think about future purchases and the system as a whole. From what Ian has said, he seems to be taking a sensible approach to making a choice i.e. not a brand fanatic (despite the provocative start of the first posting).

I use Nikon quite happily, and I like the fact that there are so many good quality manual focus lenses about. And many of the consumer grade lenses are good quality too. Plus Nikon still have mechanical connections, so you can more easily do things like reverse a wide angle lens for true macro work.

I'm sure there are lots more pluses and minuses for each system.

[Leif]

canon users get off our sub forums. and use your own..!

I don't think that comment has a place on this forum. Canon users (or anyone else) who make informative posts are more than welcome.

[pe'rigin]

canon users get off our sub forums. and use your own..!

Mark,
If that’s aimed at me then I’m am and always will be a die in the wool Nikonian. If not then I apologise.

We have not had a lot to shout about over the past 5 years, Nikon have been slow in developing and listening to the consumer and professionals.

The Company starts with a capital C for conservatism, nothing wrong with that approach, as they have always operated in this way. But Canon have been aggressive in the marketplace and rightly put our noses out of joint.

Ian was right about the D300 and D3, perhaps at last we do have something to crow about. There is no doubt Canon will respond by replacing the Mk III and 5D and off we go again on this very expensive consumer mini-roundabout.

[pabs]

Its Canon v Nikon.......and Nikon have just kicked ass with their latest offerings (D3 & D300).

Does anyone imagine that Canon will take this lying down (I don't think so!!).

Nikon have temporarily filled a gap in the DLSR market with the D300, which has become a sort of 'budget pro camera', slotted in between 'prosumer' and career pro cameras.

Now Canon must reply and slot a camera in between the 40D and the 1DS MK l/llls.

They will also have to better the Nikon D3 if they are to reclaim their crown.

None of this is helping my dilemma as a consumer.....I want to upgrade from a Nikon D50 to a useful birding set up between £2/3000 but I dont want to get caught in the crossfire. The D90 is just around the corner so why buy the D80?, the D300 warrants some decent glass which Nikon are short of around the 300/400mm mark.

Canon seem to have the best, and (judging from this forums gallery) the most popular set up with the 40D and a fare selection of good lenses around the £1000 mark (within budget).

Whats next............anyone got a crystal ball?
Hi Ian,
Your opening post raises an interesting point about selecting a camera for the first time. I myself rightly or wrongly started with nikon. The D70 was my first purchase which I was very pleased with. However, after purchasing the D200 I found my D70 rather neglected. With the features the D300 has to offer my thoughts were about upgrading until I bumped into a colleague that had just bought a Canon 40d. We were both on site for the same reason, to photograph a pair of Black-necked Grebes. It was then that I had a demonstration of the "live View" feature. I have to say that I was very impressed with this idea and it certainly worked a treat photographing rather grey looking grebes on a grey looking choppy water. My D200 was having trouble photographing the distant grebes because of the low contrast conditions. The waves as well as the grebes both had the attention of the focus lock. The D300 does have a new focusing feature that has colour focus tracking which I would like to try out. I guess I shall opt for the D300 in the end because I have nikon lens's but cant help thinking about what I am missing on the canon side.
Paul
http://www.birdlist.co.uk

[Hugh Harrop]

There is no doubt Canon will respond by replacing the Mk III and 5D .

Why do Canon need to "respond" and replace the MKIII to compete with the D3?

Cheers,

Hugh

[postcardcv]

Also, I have based all this around my original budget of £2-3000 (this will not increase no matter what). I have also taken into account the accessories such as memory cards, batteries etc.

So the best package for birding with either the 300mm or 400mm, and getting the best all round quality is with the Canon set up.

It's a shame you posted this thread in the Nikon section with the title you did... if it had been in general photography with a title such as "£2-3k to spend, what would you buy?" you may have got more constructive answers. People will tend to recommend what they use, but I'm sure you could get some good advice. For me (as a Canon user) I'd go for a 40D with a secondhand Sigma 500 f4.5, though I'm sure the same lens with a Nikon on the back would perform just as well. Good luck choosing your gear.

[Jaff]

exactly spend your hard earned on what suits you best not because someone told you too, I've always said that I went for Nikon only because the body I bought at the time (D70s) was far more comfortable and easier to use my larger hands (& chubby fingers) than the equivalent Canon the 350D, the Canon had some better points, I liked the smoother and quieter shutter and the viewfinder was brighter, do I regret the path I took, not at all, I enjoy my photography, as much as I did when I had a Zenit then a Pentax and then Contax SLR's, just pre marriage and children I found it easier to change....................

That was exactly the same for me. The D80 was just a lot better to hold and use as opposed to the 400D and since my brother had a 400D I know what it's like, mine was faster (esp. in image playback), bigger grip, better battery and more ergonmically friendly and it had a plastic cover to protect the screen, which just goes to show Nikon really put a lot of time and effort into the little things. Paul couldn't leave mine alone and kept fondling and groping it cos it felt that much better to hold. Yes you can get a battery grip for the 400D and problem solved but it's extra cost!

That said if I could have afforded a 30D or there was a second-hand 20D knocking around at the time then I'd have gone Canon without hesitation, mainly because they have a greater range of 300mm zooms which was all I was after at the time.

Some of the posts here have made me laugh but come on, lets try and keep a good honest thread free from lunacy.
Jaff

[pe'rigin]

Why do Canon need to "respond" and replace the MKIII to compete with the D3?



Hugh,


I don’t think that I indicated that the MK III was in any way competing with the D3.

I wrote that a better model would replace it.

What I should have written:-

“Canon will fix the Mk III, lead it into a darken room, lock the door, where it will morph into the D7. Complete with a bigger sensor, better cleaning unit, and automatic ISO”.

And of course charge £3K+.

[postcardcv]

...For me (as a Canon user) I'd go for a 40D with a secondhand Sigma 500 f4.5...

Such as this one heer at £1100 - http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=105353 buy a 40D, spare batteries and memory cards and still come in under £2k.

[mark richards]

Ha! Ha! He! He! You Lot Make Me Laugh....

[nigelblake]

Ha! Ha! He! He! You Lot Make Me Laugh....

Hey Mark, I usually find a persons gallery is a good indicator of how good, bad or indifferent their knowledge of cameras and photography is. I just looked at yours and its empty! 3:-)3:-)3:-)3:-)

[pabs]

Hey Mark, I usually find a persons gallery is a good indicator of how good, bad or indifferent their knowledge of cameras and photography is. I just looked at yours and its empty! 3:-)3:-)3:-)3:-)
Nigel, You do raise a good point. Anyone can buy a camera but not everyone takes the time to get familiar with it completely. A persons experience of their equipment will show on the end result which is always worth bearing in mind. I still study all my pictures in detail.
regards,
Paul

[Vectis Birder]

I still study all my pictures in detail.


I study mine, too, and always cringe at what I see. :stuck:

As for experience, I would think that a good way to learn your gear is to take pictures using the manual settings. That way you get to learn about photography faster than you would just leaving the thing set to 'auto'.

[Ian Latham]

Ha! Ha! He! He! You Lot Make Me Laugh....

Argynnis aglaga, Mark. :t::t::t:

[Doug Greenberg]

Hey Mark, I usually find a persons gallery is a good indicator of how good, bad or indifferent their knowledge of cameras and photography is. I just looked at yours and its empty! 3:-)3:-)3:-)3:-)

I winced at this because I have posted very few photos to BF in recent months. I now post my own photos mainly to my gallery at www.flickr.com (http://www.flickr.com).

[Ian Latham]

I winced at this because I have posted very few photos to BF in recent months. I now post my own photos mainly to my gallery at www.flickr.com (http://www.flickr.com).

You mean to say that you dont have your own website Doug? :eek!:

Good grief man!!.....and you have the nerve to call your self a 'pro'? ;)

[mark richards]

Hi mr ,BLAKE, my mate ,old pal.I do have my photos on the web but not on this forum when i have a bit of time i shall put some on here.(just for you ) all taken with my humble D70 and a jam jar for a lens , yes its not what you got! I here you say,BUT ITS
HOW YOU USE IT , fine for a person who walks around carrying £10,000 plus of equipment, WELL i think i should go now, and make some more hides ,NOW WHERES THAT SAW GONE, its hard being on the dole.......

[Andy Bright]

Mark, you may wish to visit dpreview... we think you'll find it more suited to your style of posting and where those with one brand venture into another brand's forum at their peril.

BF has managed quite happily over the years in the photography section without any of the brand war fanboy rubbish you get on some other sites. Yep, there can be heated discussion here but it's generally constructive.

Despite this thread's title, let's try to aim for the same thing... constructive advice and better photos.

regards,
Andy

[James]

I am no different from a lot of other people and want the best equipment I can afford. HOWEVER I recently went to Manchester Museum to see an exhibition of wildlife photography. The images were STUNNING and when I looked most were taken with a Canon 10D and a 100 - 400 zoom lens. This is exactly my set up.

Conclusion - I need to be a better photographer not buy better equipment.

The 10D is old and nowhere near the top of the list in best cameras today but just look at the pictures it takes. Get out there with whatever you have or can afford and work hard and practice!!!

I think we all forget this when a shiny new toy comes along.

James

[mark richards]

thanks andy i didnt spit out my dummy.

[Leo S]

It's a shame Canon lenses won't work on Nikon cameras and vice versa.

Canon lenses won't work on Nikon cameras, as you say, but adapters are available which will let you use Nikon lenses on Canon EOS cameras whilst maintaining infinity focus without adding any extra optics.

I use Nikon lenses on Canon cameras all the time, and although there are limitations (such as no AF), they work well for me. It's great having such a large pool of lenses to choose from, and quite a few other brands can be adapted for use on Canon cameras as well, giving a huge choice.

[Jaff]

I knew there was something like that knocking around.

Pity it's the wrong way round, I don't think there's many Canon guys that would soil their camera with a Nikon lens (it's a joke people!).

[Leif]

I knew there was something like that knocking around.

Pity it's the wrong way round, I don't think there's many Canon guys that would soil their camera with a Nikon lens (it's a joke people!).

Right, it's tripods at dawn matey. |=)|

Seriously though, I don't know if you know about the new Nikon to Canon adaptor which allows Nikon AFS lenses to be used on Canon bodies. AFS lenses are normally unusable, except at full aperture, due to the lack of an aperture ring. I believe the adaptor effectively incorporates an aperture ring and connections to the aperture lever.

http://www.16-9.net/nikon_g/

I have no idea how well it words, and I also have no connnection, financial or whatever, with the maker and/or seller.

I suspect Nikon are not pleased with this, as it allows landscape photographers to use the new Nikon 14-24 F2.8 lens on Canon cameras, hence removing a reason to buy a Nikon camera.

[Leo S]

Seriously though, I don't know if you know about the new Nikon to Canon adaptor which allows Nikon AFS lenses to be used on Canon bodies. AFS lenses are normally unusable, except at full aperture, due to the lack of an aperture ring. I believe the adaptor effectively incorporates an aperture ring and connections to the aperture lever.

Thanks for posting - I had not heard of this till now. Good to know that adapters are becoming more advanced, and there are more options available.

As you may know, and I think it's worth posing here again for the benefit of those that do not know, there are also adapters available that have chips built into them, which connect to the electrical contacts on the body so that the focus confirmation feature will work with the lens. The chips can also be bought separately and used to upgrade an existing adapter you might have.


I suspect Nikon are not pleased with this, as it allows landscape photographers to use the new Nikon 14-24 F2.8 lens on Canon cameras, hence removing a reason to buy a Nikon camera.

I doubt that they would be more upset than Canon, since it's lenses where the real money is made. Bodies are cheap in comparison, with the obvious exception of the full-pro bodies.

BTW I think it's worth noting that in many cases pre-digital era Nikkor lenses actually work better and produce better results on Canon bodies than they do on Nikon DSLRs (at least in my experience). I have not tried any of the new Nikon cameras, so perhaps this may not be the case with them.