finally did it
- Thread starter XJBANKER
- Start date
Every Miles A Memory
Expedition Leader
I wouldnt do this for just anyone, but knowing how you treat what you have, I've seen Steve's Jeep and Camper, if you want to borrow either the 15mm Fisheye or the 17-35mm Lens, I can package it up and mail it out to you.
Then just put it back in the box and mail it back to me when you're done.
I should say that the 17mm is broken and will only work as a 17mm. For some reason if you try and zoom it out, it freezes up and stops working and you have to take it off the camera to get it to work again??? Sent it into Sigma, and they said they couldnt duplicate it??? Figures
But you're more than welcome to use either of them. The fisheye is what Cindy used on her 30D most of the time while riding with Nanette and shooting out the windshield.
It tends to distort the outer images of the image, where the 17mm is almost as wide, but doesnt distort the frame the way the Fisheye Lens does.
Let me know, I can put one in the mail today if you want it.
Then just put it back in the box and mail it back to me when you're done.
I should say that the 17mm is broken and will only work as a 17mm. For some reason if you try and zoom it out, it freezes up and stops working and you have to take it off the camera to get it to work again??? Sent it into Sigma, and they said they couldnt duplicate it??? Figures
But you're more than welcome to use either of them. The fisheye is what Cindy used on her 30D most of the time while riding with Nanette and shooting out the windshield.
It tends to distort the outer images of the image, where the 17mm is almost as wide, but doesnt distort the frame the way the Fisheye Lens does.
Let me know, I can put one in the mail today if you want it.
Every Miles A Memory
Expedition Leader
Now who would ever think a Grown Man would pee himself over an offer from another guy:elkgrin:
Ryan, I've told you a few different times, its a shame you shoot the Dark Side
Ryan, I've told you a few different times, its a shame you shoot the Dark Side
DrMoab
Explorer
if nikon doesn't step up their game and release a full frame camera to compete with the 5D mk II soon I might switch sides.
Honestly I don't really hold any brand affiliation. I bought Nikon because a a friend who shoots profesionaly shot Nikon. Then he jumped ship and ran to Canon too.
The only think holding me to Nikon is the money I have tied up in glass and what not.
Did I mention that I really really REALLY lust after the 5D MkII's?
HB 4X4
Adventurer
This summer/fall we should start hearing about the D700's upgrade, and I am sure the 5D Mark II is being taken into consideration as it's competition. The FPS on the 5d Mark II is a joke though.
I have mentioned this many times, but the problem Nikon faces with the D700 is that if they upgrade it too much, the D3s which is double the price will be in the same league and there will be no reason to pay twice as much for it. The D3s should have been upgraded better because all they did was create a line in which they cannot cross.
Every Miles A Memory
Expedition Leader
Thre are already rumors floating about that Canon is working on a 5D MarkIII using much of the 7D's computers and faster FPS
If there was one reason to go to Canon, it would be to sit down with a pen and paper and compare the price of the lenses
Comparable lenses in the Nikon line up are sometimes $2-3000 more than the Canon equivilent.
If I was just starting out, I'd go Canon all the way. Since bodies seem to outdate themselves ever few months, lenses are where the real shopping is done.
I mean check out the 1D Mark IV, that sucker has an ISO of 102,400!!:Wow1:!! That's just amazing!
It will shoot in full HD and can handle 10fps, has a 45 auto-focus system and its shutter is rated at 300,000 clicks. How do you improve on that other than upping the sensor and moving it up to Full Frame
Bodies are just out of control with how fast they move, but Lenses are where you really need to look when considering which system to chose.
Back on topic, Steve, you made the right choice
If there was one reason to go to Canon, it would be to sit down with a pen and paper and compare the price of the lenses
Comparable lenses in the Nikon line up are sometimes $2-3000 more than the Canon equivilent.
If I was just starting out, I'd go Canon all the way. Since bodies seem to outdate themselves ever few months, lenses are where the real shopping is done.
I mean check out the 1D Mark IV, that sucker has an ISO of 102,400!!:Wow1:!! That's just amazing!
It will shoot in full HD and can handle 10fps, has a 45 auto-focus system and its shutter is rated at 300,000 clicks. How do you improve on that other than upping the sensor and moving it up to Full Frame
Bodies are just out of control with how fast they move, but Lenses are where you really need to look when considering which system to chose.
Back on topic, Steve, you made the right choice
Lost Canadian
Expedition Leader
Nikon and Canon are both about the same in terms of value and price, some offerings are lower some are higher. Nikon offers a 5 year warranty on their pro glass, Canon a 1 year. I think people should look at what each company has to offer in terms of product options and choose the one that best suits their needs and wants that way.
Here's a few of pro level full frame lenses, the prices are straight from Nikon and Canon's websites.
Nikon 600mm F4= $10,299.95.
Canon 600mm F4= $9199.00.
Nikon 500mm F4= $8,579.95.
Canon 500mm F4= $6999.00.
Nikon 400mm F2.8= $9,549.95.
Canon 400mm F2.8= $7999.00.
Nikon 200mm F2= $5,099.95.
Canon 200mm F2= $5999.00.
Nikon 70-200mm F2.8= $2,399.95.
Canon 70-200mm F2.8= $2499.00.
Nikon 200-400 F4 = $6,999.95.
Canon= N/A
Nikon 24-70 F2.8=$1,889.95.
Canon 24-70 F2.8=$1449.00.
Nikon 14-24 F2.8= $1,999.95
Canon N/A
Nikon 16-35 F4 =$1,259.95.
Canon 16-35 F2.8=$1699.00.
Nikon 105mm F2.8 Macro = $984.95.
Canon 100mm F2.8 Macro = $1049.00.
Nikon N/A
Canon 17mm PC F4=$2499.00.
Nikon 24mm PC F3.5= $2,199.95.
Canon 24mm PC F3.5= $2199.00.
I went with Nikon because their range of lenses appealed to me more than Canon's. As for bodies, eh, they come and go. Both companies jump back and forth as far as who has the better product at any one time but neither is leaps and bounds better then each other at any one point. If you can spot a Nikon picture over a Canon picture you are seeing things that the 99.99999999998% rest of us can't.
Here's a few of pro level full frame lenses, the prices are straight from Nikon and Canon's websites.
Nikon 600mm F4= $10,299.95.
Canon 600mm F4= $9199.00.
Nikon 500mm F4= $8,579.95.
Canon 500mm F4= $6999.00.
Nikon 400mm F2.8= $9,549.95.
Canon 400mm F2.8= $7999.00.
Nikon 200mm F2= $5,099.95.
Canon 200mm F2= $5999.00.
Nikon 70-200mm F2.8= $2,399.95.
Canon 70-200mm F2.8= $2499.00.
Nikon 200-400 F4 = $6,999.95.
Canon= N/A
Nikon 24-70 F2.8=$1,889.95.
Canon 24-70 F2.8=$1449.00.
Nikon 14-24 F2.8= $1,999.95
Canon N/A
Nikon 16-35 F4 =$1,259.95.
Canon 16-35 F2.8=$1699.00.
Nikon 105mm F2.8 Macro = $984.95.
Canon 100mm F2.8 Macro = $1049.00.
Nikon N/A
Canon 17mm PC F4=$2499.00.
Nikon 24mm PC F3.5= $2,199.95.
Canon 24mm PC F3.5= $2199.00.
I went with Nikon because their range of lenses appealed to me more than Canon's. As for bodies, eh, they come and go. Both companies jump back and forth as far as who has the better product at any one time but neither is leaps and bounds better then each other at any one point. If you can spot a Nikon picture over a Canon picture you are seeing things that the 99.99999999998% rest of us can't.
DrMoab
Explorer
You'll notice that I never brought up image quality.
I will agree with the aspect of not only warranty but also from what I've heard, Nikon is a night and day better company to deal with if you do have problems.
Scott Borne...one of the worlds premier avian photographers switched from Canon to Nikon a few years back over this exact issue. I read a blog post where he stated that he swapped out over $50K in gear. You don't just make a decision like that over nothing.
That being said...the friend I was talking about who convinced me to buy Nikon and then jumped to Canon did so because he had constant problems with a Nikon body that they wouldn't fix.
Back to the image quality thing though. Although I agree with you 100% on not being able to tell a difference there is a HUGE difference in video quality. Nikon can not seem to catch up to Canon when it comes to this. Even with the $5,000 D3S they still can't. While it may not be an issue to some or even most photographers, it is to me. That one issue alone could push me toward Canon if Nikon doesn't step up it's game in the video quality world.
Kodachrome
Observer
It's kind of funny, but the only people I hear saying this are amateur photographers and even then, mostly on the web. I used Canon 5D's when they came out in 2006, now I use a D700 and D3S ( when I even shoot digital which is rare anymore ). I have never had a client complain of the image quality and we are talking billboard sized, aerial shoots costing the client North of 5K in helicopter time alone, etc, etc.
If people spent a lot more time in the field shooting more photographs, learning how to see light instead of faking it in photoshop and pixel peeping, they might actually start to get a glimpse of what real photography has and will remain all about:
Great photographs that have lasting social value based on what they portray, not what camera was used...
Just some food for thought from a guy who has lived a great life in being a professional photographer for many years...:ylsmoke:
DrMoab
Explorer
I have no issue with Nikon image quality. Not once in this thread or any other time have you seen me state that I am looking at one camera over another for the "quality" of the image it will take. I am looking for two specific things. A camera that will give me better low light performance than a crop sensor camera can give me, and a camera that will give me better than average video capability. Oh and something that doesn't cost $5K.
I am not a professional photographer, never claimed to be. But I do know what I am looking for in a camera. For everything I am looking for the 5D fits pretty well. I'd love a new D3s but for what I use one for I just can't justify the extra $2300 bucks and nothing else has decent video with a full frame sensor.
I am not a professional photographer, never claimed to be. But I do know what I am looking for in a camera. For everything I am looking for the 5D fits pretty well. I'd love a new D3s but for what I use one for I just can't justify the extra $2300 bucks and nothing else has decent video with a full frame sensor.
Kodachrome
Observer
Well, that is new technology, you have to give it time and I would guess you have lots of other rewarding things to do with your time while you wait. I am pretty sure the next small build, D700 style camera will have video. Too many folks I know prefer the smaller camera bodies anyway for mountaineering, skiing, etc.
And yes, no offense to other people, but full frame is the way to go in digital or film. As for low light, the D700 is outstanding at it and the D3S a bit better still. But it still takes a great shooter to even recognize the kind of light convergences those cameras were made for in the first place. Most photo enthusiast's work comes no where even close to the limits of the gear they own, and I am talking only in terms of technical, not even the more important composition and timing.
I shot 76 rolls or 2,700 Kodachrome slides in Paris over the course of two weeks not long ago, much of it in low light with an ISO 64 speed film and often with no tripod. The image quality totally buries 90% of the digital work you see now days...how do you suppose that happened without a ISO 102,000 digi-wunder-cam?
I'm just saying folks.....when it comes to photography topics on the internet, a lot of what you read is just not true.
HB 4X4
Adventurer
I think there is a reason more top pro's shoot Nikon. (Moose Peterson, Joe McNally, Scott Kelby (lol) just to name a few).
There was a recent article where they analyzed a shot of the Super Bowl I believe. Within a few seconds you could clearly see that the Canon lenses severely outnumbered the Nikon lenses. However, upon closer inspection, it was in fact the other way around. You just couldn't see the Nikon lenses as easily since it's harder to see shadows than zebras. :ylsmoke:
You really can't go wrong with either, but for my needs Nikon fit the bill. I also preferred how their gear looked and felt over Canon. I have never liked the styling or feel of Canon's bodies.
There was a recent article where they analyzed a shot of the Super Bowl I believe. Within a few seconds you could clearly see that the Canon lenses severely outnumbered the Nikon lenses. However, upon closer inspection, it was in fact the other way around. You just couldn't see the Nikon lenses as easily since it's harder to see shadows than zebras. :ylsmoke:
You really can't go wrong with either, but for my needs Nikon fit the bill. I also preferred how their gear looked and felt over Canon. I have never liked the styling or feel of Canon's bodies.
