Swapping from Nikon

[philip_wilson]

<p>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).</p>

[marcus_a]

<p>I note several references to Nikon prices "falling" after a product has been out a while.</p>

<p>Sadly this rarely happens in NZ. The D3 was NZ$7500 12 months ago and is now NZ$9,500!</p>

[andre_noble5]

<p>With the great Nikon gear you already have, switching to Canon would be a big mistake.</p>

<p>You ever hear of the Proverb that the "Grass is always greener on the other side of the fence."?</p>

<p>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.</p>

[marcus_a]

<p>I think Canada is more welcoming these days to those of us without US passports, but I see your point! </p>

<p>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.</p>

[danaher_dempsey__jr.]

<p>What is the learning curve on being able to use and handle the Canon as well as you use your Nikons?<br>

Is this cost of a new body every three years because they wear out or because they become obsolete?<br>

What is the maximum print size you need? How much camera does it take to produce that size?<br>

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.<br>

So do you really need a digital camera that has the resolving power of a 4x5 view camera?<br>

How long will that Nikon D3 last before it wears out?<br>

Seems to me that the next Nikon will likely be better than a 6x7 medium format camera.<br>

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?<br>

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.<br>

The camera manufactures are in business to sell cameras ... new may not always be new and improved .. as far as actually improving output quality.<br>

.<br>

I do not live in NZ but I'd vote for sticking with the Nikon for at least 12 months more, if possible.</p>

[greg_kowalczewski]

<p>

<p >Hi Marcus</p>

<p > </p>

<p >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.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >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.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >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.</p>

<p > </p>

<p ></p>

<p > </p>

<p >Regards,</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Greg </p>

 

<p > </p>

 

<p > </p>

</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<div></div>

[Uhooru]

<p>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!</p>

[ndt_photo]

<p>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.</p>

[marcus_a]

<p>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.<br>

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.</p>

<p> </p>

[Uhooru]

<p>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.</p>

[stephen_asprey2]

<p>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:<br>

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.<br>

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.<br>

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.<br>

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.<br>

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.<br>

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.</p>

 

[richard_reeve3]

<p>A D3x in Australia can be had for NZ$14,000.00 ex GST even without any form of "price negotiation".<br>

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.</p>

<p> </p>

[eric_hood]

<p>http://www.d-d-photographics.com.au/nikond700.htm<br>

4,424.76 NZD<br>

3,499.00 AUD<br /></p>

[richard_reeve3]

<p>D-D Photographics are grey marketer. The products listed show no indication that they have an official Nikon Australia warranty.<br>

For genuine Australian warrantied products check out Digital Camera Warehouse (www.digitalcamerawarehouse.com.au) or European Camera Specialists (www.cameras.net.au)</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>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.</p>

<p>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).</p>

[yakim_peled1]

<blockquote>

<p><strong>The question is very much a long term cost one</strong>: 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)<br />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)<br />Switching now to Canon would therefore save between NZ$18,000 and NZ$37,000 over that 21 year period.<br>

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.<br />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.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>

<p>I thought it's worth emphasizing the OP words.</p>

<p>Happy shooting,<br>

Yakim.</p>

</p>

[desmond_kidman]

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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. </p>

<p>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........... </p>

[andrew_hopkins2]

<p>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<br>

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!<br>

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!</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>"I think Canada is more welcoming these days to those of us without US passports, but I see your point!"</p>

<p>Well, just don't let us catch you looking Middle Eastern! (My poor children have trouble on this point.)</p>

<p>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.</p>

[dan_south]

<p>My humble opinion (your mileage may vary):<br>

- There isn't much that your current kit cannot do. Hence, I don't see that there's any urgency to upgrade RIGHT NOW.<br>

- 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.<br>

- The switch will cost you a lot anyway.<br>

- 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?<br>

- Sometimes the best "action" is to do nothing.</p>

[hydra_invencible]

<p>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</p>

<p>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</p>

<p>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.</p>

 

[fujimike]

<p>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 ! </p>

[marcus_a]

<p>What is absurd about wanting to save money?<br>

What is absurd about wanting decent manufacturer back up and availability of rental gear?</p>

<p>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.<br>

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.<br>

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.</p>

[andrew_hopkins2]

<p>quote Marcus A "What is absurd about wanting to save money?"<br>

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<br>

<br />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.</p>

[stephen_asprey2]

<p>I'm with you, Andrew.<br>

The research needs to be done. I bought a whole lot of stuff from B&H and Adorama when the A$ was worth US95c.<br>

Each of us has different reasons for purchasing a particular product. To me, price is only one part of the decision.<br>

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 - <strong>his agency placed a 4mb limit on jpeg file uploads</strong> . 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.<br>

So he went the other way for commercial reasons.</p>