Swapping from Nikon

Discussion in 'Canon EOS' started by marcus_andrewes, Feb 2, 2009.

  1. For various reasons, primarily because Nikon overcharge too much here in NZ, I am thinking of switching wholesale to Canon. A 1Ds 3 here is some NZ$5,000 cheaper than a D3x, for example.
    My present kit is
    D3
    D200
    F5
    24-70 2.8
    70-200 2.8 VR
    200-400 4.0 VR
    105 2.8 Macro
    SB800 speedlight
    Body-wise I would probably go with a 1D 3 (not 's') and a 5D mk2 - I am a professional and need at least one very fast body for sports and action and high MP's would be useful for portrait and landscape stuff. I do not really need to replace the film body. I do love the high ISO capability of the Nikon D3, which I use a good deal shooting indoor sports.
    Not being familiar with Canon lenses (I did have an AE1 Program in about 1984 though..!) I would be interested to see what choices people might recommend to cover the sort of range I have in Nikon. The 200-400 is a very expensive lens and I would actually prefer a 300mm 2.8 tele instead - but that is hardly cheaper.
    I am talking with Canon about borrowing some gear for a while from CPS, but will take all the advice I can get (even "don't do it!" if you have a good reason!)
    Ta
     
  2. Well, if I were already as committed to a marque as you are to Nikon, I can't see how switching to another, incompatible system could be cheaper than just biting the bullet and upgrading where you are. Surely all new lenses and everything else is going to be more costly than the NZ$5000 you mention. You've already spent most of the money, haven't you? Just a new body would have to be cheaper than a whole new system from top to bottom, wouldn't it?
     
  3. You don't need Canon. Just get a D700 Nikon to replace your D200 and be happy. The D3X is a bomb, too many megapixels that you don't need for any kind of commercial or personal work, and way too much money. JMNHO of course.
     
  4. I'm a Canon shooter, but would advise you not to give up your D3 until Canon produces a sensor and DSLR which can match its low light performance.
    For sports in dark arenas, wildlife near dawn or dusk, or concert, dance, and theatrical settings no Canon DSLR comes close to equalling the noise-free images delivered by the D3 at 3200 ISO and beyond.
    Add to this Nikon's auto-ISO feature, and you can shoot in variable light conditions, seldom having to change settings and never using an ISO higher than necessary.
    I would wait a year to see whether Canon can meet the challenge, then switch away if they can produce a winner.
     
  5. The primary reason for changing is an on-going cost issue.
    Nikon prices in NZ are unreasonable - always too much. For example
    D3x NZ$17,500
    1 Ds Mk3 NZ$12,150
    D3 NZ$9,590
    1D Mk 3 NZ$6,850
    D700 NZ$6,850
    5D Mk2 NZ$4,590
    Thus, every time I want to upgrade my bodies, I need to find at least 30% extra cash if I stay with Nikon. Photography is not an easy way to make a living and is hardly the best paid occupation one might pick - so the cost is a very serious consideration.
    There are also some other valid reasons I think:
    CPS - Nikon offers no additional pro support here, Canon do
    Availability of hire gear - Canon is more widely available worldwide
    Given that DSLR's are evolving at a rate where they are obsolete within 2 to 3 years (at current rates, I predict a 50MP DSLR by 2015 at the latest) it is just more sensible to save the equivalent cash of a new lens or a new Mac each time you upgrade the body. I think!
    The D3 is a brilliant machine - the battery life is stunning and when it works well it is awesome. Nikon's ergonomics trump Canon's too, I think. After all - what on earth would an alien think a "Tv" setting on a camera was for?!
    I do agree that Canon need to play catch up a bit - and I am sure that they will fairly soon; I look forward to seeing that product and hope it will be priced right.
    I might start with a 5D Mk2 and one lens and see how I go....
     
  6. Hi Marcus,
    I understand how you feel, prices here in NZ are ridiculous! Not only those of Nikon, but many others as well. I find no explanation to this phenomenon, and why some things are so overpriced here. But after the price difference on the 3Dx that you are mentioning, I would certainly feel the need to abandon the brand.
    On the other hand, you have a very good Nikon kit, changing brands will only be more expensive. I would only dare to recommend the change of brands to someone who is getting started in photography and have only a couple of cheap lenses.
     
  7. The only alternative is to buy overseas - and Nikon only have themselves to blame if we all start doing that. Their draconian warranty terms try and prevent this by only covering DSLR bodies in the country of purchase rather than worldwide, so they are obviously aware of what they are doing. They still cover film bodies world-wide, rather strangely.
    In the USA, Nikon stuff gets a 5 year warranty - in NZ, 12 months. Even the pro bodies are not internationally covered, so if your gear fails whilst overseas on a shoot, you are just stuffed.
    Not really very good service.
     
  8. Sounds like you are pretty convinced of changing to Canon... I am a canon shooter, and I was going to advise as everyone else that you stick with Nikon. Having read the comments above, I believe you have a point.. so in answer to you original questions... which Lenses?
    Canon do a very similar range to Nikon for the lens range you currently have
    I can easily recommend the 70-200 f2.8 IS L lens, also either of the 24-70 f2.5 L or the 24-105 f4 IS L depending on your preference... both great choices
    I would also consider more Primes if you are heading into the 21MP range. maybe the 35mm f1.4 and the 300mm.. both get great reviews
     
  9. Thanks Scot.
    I actually would prefer not to - but I am starting to question whether I can afford not to in the long term view. Buying 3 1Ds Mk3 level bodies at current pricing over the next 10 years would save me over NZ$15,000 in comparison to the D3x.
    That is enough to buy a Canon 800mm, another body or a new Mac! Or even a new car!
     
  10. It seems like you have good reaons to want to switch, and you might be right about getting out before investing any more into a system that will cost you more then it should every time. I'm a Nikon shooter at the moment, and I'm slowly selling my gear to switch to canon, not for money, but for some of the lens' and the Canon 5D (old one)... I'm not sure what condition your current gear is in but you might be able to sell it without taking too big a loss. If you want to equate your current kit, go ahead with the 1D MKIII (although the 1D MKIIn is a steal right now on the used market) and a 5D MKII. Canon has a 24-70 f2.8, four versions of the 70-200 including the equivalent to the Nikon, the 70-200 f2.8 IS. They have a 100mm macro f2.8 that is wxcellent and as good speedlights.
    In order to transition, i would suggest you grab a 5D MKII and whatever lens you use most and bring that along with your Nikon gear.
    I'm with you when it comes to Nikon's support worldwide, it sucks. I was in Paris and wanted to get the screen replaced for my D200 and they wouldn't do it, i had scratched the screen over time, i mean it's not as if it was a fix, or a repair... They did however sell me a new seal for my F100 and tuned my shutter speeds and cleaned out the prism for free, all in 1/2 hour. It makes no sense... I know that Canon doesn't deal with customers that way, they see it as: "Here is a guy who spent thousnands of dollars on our gear, he trusts this equipmet to make a living, lets make sure he's happy and stays with us!" A single shooter represents thousands of dollars over time, lens', flashes, cameras every 2.5 years, accessories...
    You'll also find that canon does have a larger choice of lens' then Nikon although the one exception i can think of is the 14-24 f2.8 which stands apart from all lens'. Canon updates it's lens' often, new versions come out and for any focal length, their is ususally a cheaper, one stop slower version of the same lens. (16-35/f2.8 & 17-40/f4, 70-200 f2.8 & 70-200 f4, 70-200 f2.8 IS & 70-200 f4 IS, 24-70 f2.8 & 24-105 f4 IS) They have a larger selection of modern primes and i find them to be (usually) 15% cheaper to buy then the equivalent Nikon lens.
    Good luck :)
     
  11. You have been in Nikon for years. Can you wait one more month? Maybe PMA will have something interesting for you.
    Currently I think you're on the right track. 1D Mk III, 5D Mk II, 24-70/2.8, 70-200/2.8 IS, 300/2.8 IS, 100/2.8 macro (no VR), 580EX are a comparable kit to what you have.
    Happy shooting,
    Yakim.
     
  12. I didn't realize Nikon was that expensive in NZ, that sucks. Usually I wouldn't recommend anyone switching systems with that much invested, but after seeing the price differences maybe it is a smart choice. I have always liked Nikon bodies in terms of design, but Canon's aren't bad either and you quickly get used to them. Biggest reason I have stayed with Canon is like you mention, PRICE$$. I found that usually Nikon prices were always higher than the equivalent Canon gear. Also as Sam mentioned I like their lens selection better. Nikon lenses to get a pro grade build and quality glass you have to get larger heavier lenses only usually offered in a f/2.8 version. Where as with Canon if you don't need that fast of lenses they they offer smaller, one stop slower versions like 70-200 f/4 IS, 24-105 f/4 IS and so forth. As a landscape shooter that hardly ever shoots below f/8 that is really a nice option to have and saves me chunk of change as well. Something else to think about is waiting toward end of the year to switch because with Photokina in fall of 2009 there are lot rumors starting to surface with Canon replacing the 1DIII and new Nikon rumors as well. Just something to think about.
    But only you know better than anyone else on this forum what is the best business decision for you as a professional and if it was me I would personally make my decision on that, not what others on this forum say. I'm sure what ever you decide will be the right move for you..
     
  13. Marcus, search the archives a bit and you'll find Canon shooters who want to switch to Nikon. If you're serious about switching, you shouldn't have a difficult time finding someone who will swap kits outright.
     
  14. I'm currently a Canon user, but with the expensive and very fine Nikon gear you already own I find it hard to see how the switch would benefit you . In the end it really doesn't matter much at all to your photography which brand you use, and while one company may sometimes "pull ahead" of the other a bit the tables will likely be turned soon.
    Dan
     
  15. 24-70 2.8 -> 24-70L f2.8

    70-200 2.8 VR -> 70-200L f2.8 IS

    200-400 4.0 VR -> As you say, a 300L f2.8 is expensive. Maybe a 300L f4.0?

    105 2.8 Macro -> 100mm f2.8 Macro

    SB800 speedlight -> Speedlite 580EX II
     
  16. I was going to hop on the "don't switch" bandwagon, but I'm frankly astonished at the premium you must pay for Nikon gear. I guess you do have good reasons to switch. For all it's worth, though, if you're not the only one with these thoughts, Nikon will be dropping its prices to maintain market share and/or Canon raising its prices to expand margins. However, if that is true, you can sell your Nikon gear now while it still commands a premium and buy Canon gear now before prices rise. At least that's how a savvy investor would buy/sell the gear if it were shares of stock.
    Yakim's equipment list would pretty much suit your objectives, but I'll add my support for the f/4 optics, which are quite good for many photographers. They are a bit better optimized for medium apertures and tend to be a bit sharper than the 2.8 optics overall (but not by much). I love my 17-40 (which is non-IS) and my 24-105 IS. The 24-105 has mixed reviews, but my own copy seems much better than the reviews and test data would suggest. I decided to buy the 24-105 IS, rather than the 24-70/2.8, because of my heavy reliance on IS in natural light photography. I was prepared to sacrifice just a bit of sharpness in the bargain. However, I'm not the least bit disappointed with the lens in any area. I will add that it's a great walkaround lens, owning to its comfortable fl range and lighter weight. That may not be as important to what you are doing, but it makes a big difference to me.
    Canon doesn't have a good equivalent to Nikon's 200-400. The 100-400L has corner softness issues. However, the 300/2.8 should be fine.
    Good luck with your swap!
     
  17. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Your easiest solution is to find a source to buy Nikon equipment outside of New Zealand. I have friends in Australia, and they regularly order from B&H in New York. Otherwise, you may or may not like Canon equipment and therefore risk switching back and forth. For example, Canon simply does not make any lens like the Nikon 200-400mm/f4 AF-S VR, which is one of my favorites.
    At a minimum, I would rent some Canon body and lens to play around with for a couple of days and see whether you like them or not.
     
  18. Hi,
    If you choose to switch, and it sounds like you have some good reasons to consider it, I think you'll find the 1D MkIII will match your cameras for speed, function and quality quite well, although you might miss the D3's nice, bright LCD when shooting out of doors.
    This is purely speculative, but I wouldn't be at all surprised to hear of a 1D MkIII"N" or Mark IV in the not-to-distant future. It's a pretty good bet the 1Ds will be upgraded soon, too, since the 5D MkII now matches it in many respects (plus has video!) and Canon's lost their megapixel crown to the D3x and A900. I doubt Canon will let that stand for very long, even though both the current 1D models aren't all that old.
    New versions of the 1D cameras will no doubt see an upgraded LCD to keep up with the competition (and Canon's own models).
    I think it probably the 1D MkIIIN or Mk IV would see a bump in megapixels, from the current 10MP. It won't be huge, though, since they will still be looking to produce 9 or 10 frames per second with the camera. Higher ISO (up from the current 6400) is a pretty good guess, too.
    Who knows what else the new 1-series will get, but a new AF system is a possibility (and that they have one in development is something Canon execs have actually hinted at, so this is a little less speculative than most rumors... it's more just a matter whether it's ready for the real world yet).
    But, then again, who's to say just how well any new AF system will work? Look at how well that worked out for them with the Mk III! (More than a few still like the 1D MkIIN AF system better than the 1D MkIII's... but that's a pretty well documented topic).
    The 5D Mk II will be slower handling than any of your cameras, AF and frame rate.... But, hey, it's got video mode! (What were they thinking?!)
    Some of the lenses are pretty easy. I agree that Canon's 24-70/2.8, 70-200/2.8 IS and 100/2.8 USM macro are all pretty equal to their most similar Nikkor counterparts.
    Canon doesn't offer any thing exactly equivalent to the pricey 200-400/4. There is the 100-400 IS Canon, but that's not really in the same class optically and is f5.6 out at the long end.
    But, thanks to the 1.3X APS-H sensor of the 1D with either a 300/4 or 300/2.8 you will be seeing roughly the same reach as that lens, even if it's not the convenience of a zoom instead. Both of these are IS lenses, although the IS system in the f4 lens is the "early" version you have to turn off manually on a tripod.
    Some people like the Nikon flash system better. To me the Canon system is just fine too. 580EX I will be the swap for your SB800.
    If you wished, even a film camera swap would be pretty easy, I think. pick up a used EOS-3 or 1V. There are great deals around on both of these.
    If it were me, I'd wait until PMA just to see if a new 1D gets announced, with improved features and sending Mark III prices downward. If that happens, you could then either buy the older model for less money or the newer model for it's new features if they appeal to you. It probably won't have video... But, hey, you never know!
     
  19. Thanks all. Yes, Sarah - I too am astonished! However, Nikon prices have just gone up at least 10% in the last 2 months and they have rarely if ever fallen. I just think that the market here is so small that Nikon are prepared to take whatever they can get on the grounds that it is not worth the marketing effort to secure more customers - there are, after all, only 4 million people living here and probably only a fraction of a percent of those are in the professional body buying segment.
    I agree with Shun that buying from the US or Canada is not a bad plan - until your camera goes wrong and you have to send it there for repair due to the protectionist warranty system Nikon have. With no NPS in NZ, there is no gear to borrow whilst yours is repaired and so on. If Nikon had a positive attitude to the customers outside the USA who buy their gear - offering 5 year warranties and NPS, that would obviously be a plus point for them.
    One of the dealers here has sold their entire allocation of D3x's already, which amazes me given the price.
    For me it is becoming an issue of price. I can't be the first person in NZ to think this, as Canon NZ actually have a dedicated staff member to assist photographers thinking of switching!
    Part of the problem may be that there is no "Nikon NZ" - it is all done through a distributor. Australia does have Nikon Australia and I know that gear is cheaper there.
    When the D3x was announced, the price in NZ was NZ$21,500 until it was pointed out to them that we could buy it in Australia for NZ$15,500! It is still way too high as an ongoing commitment though, I think.
     
  20. Maybe you can sell your Nikon stuff on eBay you might get a better deal than trying to trade it in. I had a friend who took out a loan several years ago so that he could buy some Canon gear and do some wedding work with it. When the Nikon D200 came out he was awe struck by the hype and the capabilites of this camera. He traded all his Canon equipment in before he even finished paying for the loan. His original equipment I think consisted of a Canon 20D several lenses, flash and a printer. I don't think he got more than a thousand dollars for it.
     
  21. I wonder what the threadstarter meant. Selling such a kit (that lowly amateurs can only dream of) means a huge loss, no matter how good a deal you make. Canon cannot be that cheap.
     
  22. I beleive that Marcus wants to get out of a system that is costing him more over time. Selling his current equipment and the would have been cost of staying with Nikon are much higher then the one time cost of switching systems... Whether or not that is accurate, i don't know since i can't speak for the used market in NZ or the condition of his gear, however judging from the price info he has posted, quick math makes it that 2-3 new nikon bodies cover the additional cost of switching systems... I would say go fo it. Rent or borow from CPS a body and lens and make sure you won' miss somthign with the new system, apart from getting used to new menus and button layout, i think you should be fine.
     
  23. Don't do anything. Canon is about to upgrade the 1D3 in response to the leakage of 000's of pro's from Canon. The Canon is an ergo nightmare compared to the D3. You have the platinum collection of Nikon FX lenses. You made your investment. The body is just a scanner.
    Comparing to the D3x?...is the D3 not enough? You will only notice the possible difference in a print that's A0 size or bigger. The 12mp sensor already out resolves most of the gold ring Nikon lenses, as does the 5D2 with Canons L series. In fact, Canon have to go to 21Mp to match the D700 in resolution, but with more noise, why upgrade?
    The D3x is inferior to the D3 in low light, hi ISO situations. Thats the price you pay for more sensor cells.
    If you are so fussed about price, buy yourself a return airfare to Hong Kong and you can have the D3x much cheaper than in NZ. Or you can buy it in Sydney at A$12300 (US$7500). Nikon is waiting to see how many orders they get at the introduction price before they lower it. I'm told its plenty. Its on back order. They are also being cagey about dropping the price with the 1D4(?)coming soon. I also hear that the Canon 1D3 successor this year will be at the Nikon 3Dx price.
    Neither manufacturer can afford to be too far away from each others list price as the pro end of the market is intensely competitive.
     
  24. Sam has the right idea.
    In essence, once this stuff becomes tools for making a living, you have to adjust your view of it. I do not dream of one badge or another - I can take pictures for my clients with either and frankly both produce stunning results in 90% of situations, with perhaps one having a slight edge over the other in the other 10% of situations. Both are built well and are reliable.
    The question is very much a long term cost one: If I buy one Nikon pro body every 3 years for say the next 21 years, at current prices I will pay between NZ$66,000 and NZ$122,000. (using D3 and D3x prices)
    The same Canon bodies (ignoring the EOS5D Mk2) would cost between NZ$48,000 and NZ$85,000. (EOS 1D Mk3 and EOS 1Ds Mk3)
    Switching now to Canon would therefore save between NZ$18,000 and NZ$37,000 over that 21 year period.
    Of course, I have ignored pricing and technology changes over the 21 years - but I have no way to account for those! Based on current pricing, you can see that Canon is much cheaper to buy, will run just as well and take just as good images.
    Yes, I will loose money (which can be written off as a business cost) when I sell or trade the gear (which is in great order, btw) but what I am wrestling with now is a long term business decision as much as it is anything else.
     
  25. Marcus, you should experiment with the Canon system before deciding on whether or not you should or even have a legitimate reason to abandon Nikon. For a very long time, Canon had consistently appeared to be the better system for me on paper. More choices: both better and cheaper choices; and a generally more well-rounded system with everything up to date (as far as lenses, especially f/4 pro zooms, primes, and telephotos). But for the few times I got to really use Canon, the actual shooting experience (controls, feel), and the end result (down to the RAW files, and out of camera twicked JPEGs) just feel and look different. For reasons that are not exactly black and white but yet obvious, I like how Nikon's products feel. So despite the fact that I'm paying more for Nikon gears (yes, this is even the case in the US), I decided to stick with it.
    As far as lenses goes, you should realize you have quite a few lenses that Canon doesn't really have an equivalent of. The 200-400 f/4 VR is one obvious exclusive product. (although it's true Canon's 300 f/2.8L IS is cheaper than Nikon's 300 f/2.8 VR, and they also make a good 300 f/4 with IS) Canon's 100 micro lacks VR/IS, and it's a mid-grade non-L lens (Nikon's 105 VR is gold-ringed). Nikon's 24-70 is a newer lens than Canon's 24-70 f/2.8L. Both are said to have good optics (I use the nikkor, and I know it sure does), but the Nikon does feature better egronomics (most significantly a skinner, more handholdable body with a reasonable wide zoom ring).
    I think chances are the switch itself might cost you more than the amount you can save from switching...
     
  26. Marcus - I am a long term Canon uses (from the F1 onwards) but I have always been of the opinion that there is little to choose between them. Canon has always tended to be slightly cheaper for bodies than Nikon although the gap has narrowed over the years (in the days of the F3 it was significant in most countries). I do not think you will save by buying in the US - your price on the 1DsIII is slightly less than the US price (12,150NZD vs 13,000NZD) while the D3X is slightly more (17,500 NZD in NZ vs $16,000 NZD in the USA). If you expect this situation to continue then you make a good case to switch. While the difference in price between the 1DsIII and the D3X is significant in the US it is really just a timing issue. When the 1DsIII was launched it was US$8,000 but has fallen to US$6,500 as it aged. I expect the D3X will fall to around $6,500 and when the 1DsIV is launched it will be more expensive than the Nikon. However, in NZ it looks like Canon is cheaper than in the USA (the 5DII is US$2700 here but only US$2300 in NZ!) so a switch may make sense. If you do switch I would suggest the 300F2.8 as it is a much better lens than the 100-400L and for sports use focuses faster than the 300F4 (although the 300F4 is much more portable). If you do want a film body I suggest the EOS 3 as it is nearly as good as the 1V (unless you want 10fps) and can be found for about $300 in excellent condition. It looks like you have a situation where Nikon gouges you and Canon is aggressively priced. In the USA B&H and Adorama have the 5DII and the D700 at almost the same price (US$2700).
     
  27. I note several references to Nikon prices "falling" after a product has been out a while.
    Sadly this rarely happens in NZ. The D3 was NZ$7500 12 months ago and is now NZ$9,500!
     
  28. With the great Nikon gear you already have, switching to Canon would be a big mistake.
    You ever hear of the Proverb that the "Grass is always greener on the other side of the fence."?
    You should save your money, in a year or two take a trip to the US - if you have a friend adress in the states, even better. Buy Nikon via mail order, pay NO Taxes, and take it home with you in your normal camera bag, without the boxes. Enjoy the states while your at it.
     
  29. I think Canada is more welcoming these days to those of us without US passports, but I see your point!
    Of course, the warranty system is intended to prevent us from doing that. Funny that a manufacturer should whinge so much about 'grey market' sales when their own policies actually cause the problem for them.
     
  30. What is the learning curve on being able to use and handle the Canon as well as you use your Nikons?
    Is this cost of a new body every three years because they wear out or because they become obsolete?
    What is the maximum print size you need? How much camera does it take to produce that size?
    For my son a D700 with that 24-70mm f2.8 zoom does just fine. The Resolution with a 50mm f1.8 seems pretty similar to 6x7 film.
    So do you really need a digital camera that has the resolving power of a 4x5 view camera?
    How long will that Nikon D3 last before it wears out?
    Seems to me that the next Nikon will likely be better than a 6x7 medium format camera.
    How much difference can one see at a 20 in x 16 in print size when a D700 or D3 is compared with a D3x?
    Yes there were lots of improvements from D1 to D3 and from D100 to D300 and they were useful. I do not expect to see anywhere near as much in useful gains in picture quality in the next decade.
    The camera manufactures are in business to sell cameras ... new may not always be new and improved .. as far as actually improving output quality.
    .
    I do not live in NZ but I'd vote for sticking with the Nikon for at least 12 months more, if possible.
     
  31. Hi Marcus
    Your zoom lenses are the best that Nikon currently offers and the D3 camera body is the current (and only) full frame benchmark for DSLR sports bodies. I make the assumption that your equipment is new and that your cameras and lenses are in excellent working condition with an abundance of future life.
    I endorse Bruce Reid’s comments, particularly considering what you already have. I think you have enough firepower to solve most of your sporting needs and apart from throwing an f/1.4 prime into the mix I would struggle to see what else you would need that your current arsenal of bodies and lenses could not handle.
    The 200-400 VR f/4 is a unique zoom option not matched elsewhere (ditto Shun Cheung) and the 70-200 VR f/2.8 is as good as it gets with respect to performance, IQ and build quality for f/2.8 zoom glass. Your system is a great one for sport.
    Regards,
    Greg
    00SKvp-108198184.jpg
     
  32. Let see, I'm going to dump thousands of dollars in lenses so I can spend thousands more for a whole new system because I don't like the price of one item. The stated reason is for economy? Wow, don't let me talk you out of it.. The world economy needs you!
     
  33. I don't understand how people label camera bodies obsolete after 2 years when new generations of bodies come out. If you were a professional 2 years ago and were using that camera body is it not up to your high level of needs? Isn't that why you bought it in the first place? Same goes for computers and peripherals. At some point you can just use the equipment you have already and master it instead of always having to learn to play with new toys. If you are the type of person that always has the highest end gear and you charge your clients for that fact then you need to adjust your pricing to pay for your needs.
     
  34. If we had no reason to change bodies - better autofocus, more accurate metering, better high ISO performance, more card slots, faster shooting speed - etc etc, we would all still be using cameras that were made 10 years ago - or film, for that matter - and camera companies would go bust. Last I looked, most of us were not! These things all improve and make shooting easier and usually help improve results. Ditto computers and software. My 3 year old Mac G5 runs software at half the speed of my wife's 12 month old Intel Mac Book Pro, for example.
    Sure, we probably don't HAVE to change them - but I know that my D3 makes shots my D200 does not and I know that the D5 will make shots that the D3 does not and so on. The same is presumably true of Canon.
     
  35. Danaher, I think you are a little optamistic in your comparisons with 6x7 MF and View Camera with a 35mm digital. I think maybe that's a lil hyperbolic, but the basic point is well taken.
     
  36. Marcus made a point about having to refresh the camera every three years. This is the problem with digital. I have film cameras and three digital, (two are compacts). I refuse to get on the upgrade wagon and I never buy new. Here's why, and the edge is with Nikon, I'm afraid:
    You don't have to lose money on cameras if you buy wisely and buy the classics. I still have every film camera I ever purchased, still use them and they are all worth more than I paid for them. OM1n, FM2n, FE2, F4s, and now I have a near new D300 that I bought for A$1650. I could sell that for A$1800 anytime. I purchased them all when they were about 2 years old, except the D300. Its a year old. I chose very carefully. I could not afford Leica. The Nikons were the next best thing. The OM1n was an aberration, but with the 50/1.4, its as good as the rest.
    When I bought the D300, it was my first digital SLR. It was a huge decision for me. A major move in my photography. I will never pay more for A$2000, for a body. Its much better to buy great lenses, but you still have to do your research and be carefull. All my older manual Nikon lenses work beautifully on my D300 (DX cropping apart). All the new lenses also work on my D300. Its a touchstone of compatibility, like the F4s. Next year I will trade the D300 for a used D700, and that will be it. The move to Fx will mean all my lenses are also released from the cropping factor again. A temporary adjustment for a year. The changeover will be about A$500 max. I'll never need any more resolution than that provided by the D700 and the lenses I have.
    The move to digital was only to avoid the developing trouble and delay. But I still go through lots of Velvia and TriX. Its fun and the images are worth it. Running through a 36 exposure film with my F4s in about 5 seconds is awesome. But the D300 will allow me to do more, faster and with less effort. Not better. That's all. I will never need the resolution, but the D300/700 is like the older Nikons. Its like using an instrument. It has the same feel of concentrated weight. The D3 is the same, but for my style, totally unnecessary.
    An Analogy: If anyone of you know your handguns, its like the difference in holding a new poly Glock in your hand, or holding a nice used Browning Hi Power. Its the feel. The way it fits your hand. Its an extension of your hand. You are at ease immediately. A poor comparison, I know. But its the same with Nikon and Leica...and then everything else.
    I looked at Canons, and apart from the egonomics, the forwards and backwards lens compatibility issue killed it dead. This is a huge consideration. Nikon not only protects what you have ever bought, but also protects everything that you will buy in the future. That does not matter so much if you are a pro and someone else pays the bills. But if its your money, its critical.
    Lastly, I plan on buying a manual Hassleblad soon. They are as cheap as chips. Just for portraits. But I will watch the prices of used digital film backs and snap one up when the price is sensible. Then I can have fun with studio digital and play with 50Mp files.
     
  37. A D3x in Australia can be had for NZ$14,000.00 ex GST even without any form of "price negotiation".
    An Auckland -Sydney return airfare costs what NZ$600.00? Even if you had to pay NZ GST on the way back from your day trip to Sydney for business you would still have saved almost enough for a Mac and gained some frequent flyer miles and watched two airline movies.
     
  38. http://www.d-d-photographics.com.au/nikond700.htm
    4,424.76 NZD
    3,499.00 AUD
     
  39. D-D Photographics are grey marketer. The products listed show no indication that they have an official Nikon Australia warranty.
    For genuine Australian warrantied products check out Digital Camera Warehouse (www.digitalcamerawarehouse.com.au) or European Camera Specialists (www.cameras.net.au)
     
  40. I don't think there is any reason to keep up with every new development in digital SLRs. For example I intend to skip the D3X generation - not because it's not good but simply because I don't feel the computers are quite ready to handle the volumes of data that result comfortably (this is subjective), and there is currently a price premium associated with the latest equipment.
    Switching will probably make you lose more than you would buy simply keeping what you have and purchasing a D3X. Not to mention wait for the summer and get the prosumer version of the same sensor. If you're overly concerned about the NZ prices, just order from B&H or KEH. I do that quite often as the European prices for Nikon equipment usually are very high also (exception was end of last year, when the pound dropped in value which allowed some sweet deals to be obtained).
     
  41. The question is very much a long term cost one: If I buy one Nikon pro body every 3 years for say the next 21 years, at current prices I will pay between NZ$66,000 and NZ$122,000. (using D3 and D3x prices)
    The same Canon bodies (ignoring the EOS5D Mk2) would cost between NZ$48,000 and NZ$85,000. (EOS 1D Mk3 and EOS 1Ds Mk3)
    Switching now to Canon would therefore save between NZ$18,000 and NZ$37,000 over that 21 year period.
    Of course, I have ignored pricing and technology changes over the 21 years - but I have no way to account for those! Based on current pricing, you can see that Canon is much cheaper to buy, will run just as well and take just as good images.
    Yes, I will loose money (which can be written off as a business cost) when I sell or trade the gear (which is in great order, btw) but what I am wrestling with now is a long term business decision as much as it is anything else.​
    I thought it's worth emphasizing the OP words.
    Happy shooting,
    Yakim.
     
  42. Years ago the combination of high pricing by the Mamiya importer plus favorable dollar/pound ration caused me to buy a Mamiya RZ67 Pro outfit from the UK instead of domestically. With the money I saved I knew that if I had any problems I could easily afford to FedEx the goods back to that dealer or direct to the UK service facility to have them taken care of. Now, in my history of many camera systems I have never had one serviced by the manufacturer's service center, so I considered the liklihood low. Still, in the case I might need service this really did not seem like any hardship at all and not a risk.
    Just pointing out that you are not out of luck on service if you buy from the US, it just means getting goods serviced here. It looks like, with the crazy NZ pricing, this would be a good option.
    If you were still keen on switching to Canon, I'll join some of the above folks in saying that I'm sure this will have no negative impact on your images. As for user interface with the camera, I am a strictly manual guy from medium and large format. On top of that, I hate computers, menus, and any type of complexity. For my first SLR I really debated whether I would ever figure out how to work any brand and if the complexity would get in my way. This made me really consider Nikon for the supposedly more intuitive interface. However, I really wanted the super telephotos from Canon as opposed to Nikon and Canon had the 1DsII while Nikon had no answer for that, so I held my breath and went for Canon. At first I just stuck it in manual mode and thought I might live there for a long time. However, within a weak I was using and remembering all of the functions (though the only custom function I ever use is mirror lock up) with no problem at all. Having now used the 1DsIII I can say that the interface is definitely easier, so if I started with a III series my transition would have been even easier. I'm saying all of this to point out that with your being used to DSLRs your changeover would be even easier than mine, I am sure, and in short order you'd be forgetting that you made a change at all.
    Don't worry a bit about the change or the optics. I'm sure you and your customers won't be able to tell which system the images are from. The only negative at all I can come up with is that you won't be able to take advantage of that great new wide angle Nikon zoom...........
     
  43. A quick easy check in the US, Aust and NZL shows the prices are all about the same once you take into account the exchange rates, and once you add in GST for importing from the US, well is it really worth the trouble, i dont think so, looks like it works out more expensive anyway! if you wanted to save few dollars you could fly to and buy from Sydney and post it back or possibly carry it and avoid GST
    Further it only took a few seconds to see some discrepancies in the prices Marcus has mentioned...you can buy a D700 in NZL for $4500 and if you paid $8000 US for a D3x that translates to over $15500 NZL and you still have to pay GST, postage, insurance and customs fees...hardly worth the trouble!
    I can understand the complaints that Nikon is more expensive than Canon..nothing new there! and perhaps their unworkable warrantee schemes, but as for the complaints that they are dearer in NZL ...well they aint as far I found out with a couple of easy price comparisons....the NZL dollar being further down the dunny than what the Aust $ is ,is the problem!
     
  44. "I think Canada is more welcoming these days to those of us without US passports, but I see your point!"
    Well, just don't let us catch you looking Middle Eastern! (My poor children have trouble on this point.)
    On a more serious note, the British Pound has recently plummeted, and the Euro is declining, all against a US Dollar that is fighting its way back. I'm afraid there is also more bad news ahead for the European economies, as they are only now deleveraging the same way the US has deleveraged. The better deals may now be elsewhere in the world, e.g. the UK. I don't *know* this, but it deserves some research. If you feel you can afford Nikon gear elsewhere in the world, I wouldn't worry too greatly about the warranty issues. Just pay for repairs locally, out of pocket.
     
  45. My humble opinion (your mileage may vary):
    - There isn't much that your current kit cannot do. Hence, I don't see that there's any urgency to upgrade RIGHT NOW.
    - Sooner or later Nikon will offer a high-res camera for a lot less than the D3x (D700x?). No one knows when this camera will be introduced, but its arrival is inevitable.
    - The switch will cost you a lot anyway.
    - What we think of as "high-resolution" will change over time. Someday we'll all be laughing at pathetic, old-fashioned, obsolete 24MP cameras. Is it worth changing your entire kit just to possess one of these cameras TODAY?
    - Sometimes the best "action" is to do nothing.
     
  46. I have never understand why Nikon lenses are more expensive than Canon ones, thats absurd for me,the quality is almost the same, and in many cases, Canon is much better.Also I dont get it, why Nikon has such a bad service and guarantee services in so many countries, in Spain the service is terrible, i remember it when i had Nikon gear up there, and i always had headaches with them and many absurd policies, and also what you say about guarantee only in the country , thats stupid , Nikon doesnt seem that he looses many clients every it does such stupidities
    Definetely after you tell us, that not only the prices are absurd, but they also dont give you more than 12 months of guarantee, and only in NZ, and the canon part is giving good service, i would also switch if i were you
    I switched from Nikon to Canon a few years ago and i have not regret at any moment, currently i have a 5d and im really happy with it, anyway, wheter you keep Nikon or take the right decision of switching :) keep in touch with us.
     
  47. Your reasoning for changing to Canon is absurd! Why do you want to keep upgrading anyway when you already have fantastic equipment?! I guess some people are more into gear than photography and will never be satisfied !
     
  48. What is absurd about wanting to save money?
    What is absurd about wanting decent manufacturer back up and availability of rental gear?
    The point is that - small and relatively minor differences apart - both systems produce excellent results. One just costs less to buy and has a wider lens range than the other.
    The D3 is probably better than anything Canon have now - but when the EOS-2D or whatever appears soon, it will probably be better, until the D4 comes out.
    But it will probably still cost less. I don't see how that is absurd. I have bought 3 bodies in 3 years and will almost certainly by at least 1 every 3 years going forward.
     
  49. quote Marcus A "What is absurd about wanting to save money?"
    Certainly nothing wrong with that, but surely you realise, anyone that can afford to upgrade with latest and best equipment as they appear on the market cant expect support from all sectors of the community when bleating about high prices--its absurd to think so

    Further, it is difficult to take seriously when your facts are incorrect...re; much cheaper to import. also re;the quoted prices you stated. I am not going to state them all here, they are all over the net for all to see. Moreover, the differences between camera's and lens prices were there when you purchaced them but you went down the Nikon path anyway...if you not happy then change, it seems you can afford it.
     
  50. I'm with you, Andrew.
    The research needs to be done. I bought a whole lot of stuff from B&H and Adorama when the A$ was worth US95c.
    Each of us has different reasons for purchasing a particular product. To me, price is only one part of the decision.
    A mate is a pap. He has Canon 2.8 L's from 17 to 400mm(F4). Guess what he did? He sold his two 1D3's and bought four used 40D's. His problem to be solved was 1) weight, 2) cost, 3) The biggie - his agency placed a 4mb limit on jpeg file uploads . They also specified what levels of contrast, saturation and sharpening to minimise the level of in-camera processing. They felt that it should be they who crop and improve, not the photog.
    So he went the other way for commercial reasons.
     
  51. Nikon service is slower, because they are a much much smaller company than Canon. But they sure have caught up in the camera world dramatically since the D200 and D2x.
     
  52. The quoted prices are taken directly from Photo & Video International in Christchurch and are current as of this moment...! I also did not say that it was cheaper to import - other posters suggested it as a solution. P&V advised me this morning that Nikon prices in NZ are going up again by the end of February, btw.
    I do not expect those 'sectors of the community' who feel offended that anyone might want to change their gear because of the price to chime into a debate which actually asked what Canon gear would be the equivalent of my Nikon gear and what other "good reasons" they might have for sensibly advising against it.
    The whole point of the original thread (and thanks Yakim for pointing it out!) was a debate on whether it was wise to change because of cost going forward - hardly something I would concern myself with if I could afford it happily!
    Those who wish to <rant> because my gear choices and brand choices - or the amount I choose to spend in comparison with them - do not happen to co-exist with their personal prejudices really should find somewhere else to do it. This is supposed to be a forum for constructive advice, not trolling and flaming! As my old teachers used to say "Read the question!"
     
  53. Might I suggest Marcus, as has been suggest previously, that you do some research and check some other sources to buy from within NZL. (or consider buying from Oz, for big outlays it would save a few dollars only)
    Its not a case of ‘flaming’ ‘trolling’ or any other negative connotation you wish place when another point of view is pointed out. Or perhaps this is as people do they sometimes just get stuck in one frame of mind and believe they are being attacked. And perhaps you were, by being called ‘absurd’ but as I mentioned you have to expect that if one hand you saying you update your gear consistently with the expensive latest equipment, and then on the other complain about the price, inevitably some people with think its absurd—I am not making a judgment but pointing out human nature.
    But you have said in this thread that your reasons are primarily money based, I am trying help and to point out that your quoted prices appear to be incorrect and thus your (primary) reasons are undermined and less credible; for example you said
     
  54. Sometimes the best "action" is to do nothing.​
    I agree completely. I think exactly the same. However, I don't understand why my wife is upset so often when I do it....
    Happy shooting,
    Yakim.
     
  55. Over 10 years the pricing policy of canon and nikon may change so one can't project over that period with any certainty, with the strengthening yen you may see Canon increase their prices too in NZ. Your 15k savings could evaporate just like a banks profit on mortgages backed securities.
     
  56. Oh sure, and over 10 years, humans may dissapear from earth.
    Nikon service in Spain SUCKS, and it seem that it happens the same in NZ, so, let Marcus switch and enjoy a good service, and good prices.
     
  57. Hi Marcus (with a “c”),
    Interesting thread and I joined “photog“ just to put my 2 cents worth in here. I’m a fairly lousy amateur photographer and barely know an f-stop from a door stop but I do have a handle on business and investment.
    From my perspective you can break your problem into three distinct questions:
    1. What are the best tools for the job?
    Other posters have answered that extremely knowledgably and you are clear on that question yourself. NIKON vs. CANON seems to be a tie here.
    1. Why don’t I like NIKON even though I have invested heavily in it?
    I detect an emotional element in your postings based on the NIKON warranty and their pricing policies. If this is serious for you, change to CANON but that would be an emotional decision, not a rational business one. What is the warranty coverage really worth? How often are there reasons to use it? How often do you work outside NZ where the worldwide warranty that CANON offers really (potentially) makes a difference? Do a risk assessment and if you determine likelyhoods of more than say 50% then go and change. This would then make a swop a sound business decision.
    1. Long-term cost of investment into a system
    If you want to look at this as purely a business decision then your previously made assumptions are wrong (in an accounting/finance sense):
    The question is very much a long term cost one: If I buy one Nikon pro body every 3 years for say the next 21 years, at current prices I will pay between NZ$66,000 and NZ$122,000. (using D3 and D3x prices)
    The same Canon bodies (ignoring the EOS5D Mk2) would cost between NZ$48,000 and NZ$85,000. (EOS 1D Mk3 and EOS 1Ds Mk3)
    Switching now to Canon would therefore save between NZ$18,000 and NZ$37,000 over that 21 year period.

    a) cost of swapping
    Your current gear was bought for 100, you’ve used it for a period so it’s depreciated to something less than 100 (say 60, your accountant will give you the exact details). You buy equivalent CANON gear new for say 90. The difference of 30 needs to be financed with an interest rate (if you have the cash in the back you get interest, if you have to ask for a business loan you pay their lending rate, in investing you use an “opportunity cost rate” which is higher than the lending rate from a bank!). So, financing the difference of 30 over 21 years of your remaining career will calculate to quite a tidy amount – check with your accountant/tax adviser what the actual figures should be! You should also run the numbers with best-guess trade-in prices to compare.
    b) future cost of maintaining the system (i.e. upgrading to your requirements)
    You say if you compare the body costs between N and C and there is always a significant price difference. If you want to look at the value of a future investment you cannot compare at todays prices! In investment you use the “Net Present Value” (NPV). It basically states that a dollar today is worth a dollar today (duh, obviously). But spending or getting a dollar tomorrow is worth less today (there is that interest rate again). A dollar next year is only say 95 cents today because you can invest that at maybe 5% interest and it will grow to a dollar in that period. If you are looking at an upgrade cycle of 3 years a dollar then is only worth about 86 cents today (based on an interest rate of only 5%! – higher rates mean less cents). In other words the real NPV of the investment difference is smaller than you think. A dollar you want to invest in 21 years is only worth about 36 cents today (based on 5% interest).
    So, combine the two points (upfront investment cost include future interest cost!) and NPV difference of the two systems (you need to do an “investment ladder”) and you may not save anything significant or even run a negative return. Talk to your accountant and use real figures!
    As an aside, you could hop on a plane and buy the gear in Oz (or Singapore or Hong Kong or Tokyo or New York) and save a bundle. But, you would have to pay duty/taxes on arrival back to NZ. Since they are business assets you need to depreciate and account for them properly so any new bodies/lenses will need to be disclosed to your revenue/customs department :-(
    I’m curious to find out what you will do. Good luck in any case.
    Cheers – Markus (with a “k”!)
     
  58. There are Nikon people and Canon people. My first 'serious' 35mm camera was the manual Canon F-1 in the eary 70s. Outside of my Leicas, I'm a Canon shooter. Very rarely does one switch loyalty from Nikon to Canon or vice versa. Good luck with whatever choice you make.
     
  59. A tool is a tool. Get the best you can for the price.
     
  60. B&H ship to NZ, don't they?
     

Share This Page