Why did YOU choose Nikon?

[ky2]

Just a little question to you long-time Nikon users/veterans... Why

did YOU choose Nikon? Do you still feel content about that

decision? -- I myself fell in love with the manual-everything world,

and on this my Nikon system fully delivers :).

[gary evans]

Name, brand trust, reputation were all factors, as was my wife's family's extreme loyalty to Nikon. (Her Dad owns an original F that is pristine).

 

But probably the main draw was that Nikon's entry cameras (started with N65, switched to N75) felt sturdier and less plastic-y than Canon's entry level offerings.

 

Of course, I just received my F100 today, and that makes the N65 and N75 feel plastic-y, and the Canon entries feel like they are made of paper or styrofoam!

[chris haake]

I actually started out leaning towards the Canon models, but when I found out that the Canon bodies I could afford did not offer spot meter, the deal was off. I don't regret it a bit, as I use the spot meter of my N75 in probably 30% to 35% of my shots.<p><p>Another thing that helped was the (at least partial) compatibility of MF lenses. True, they won't meter with my N75, but at least I can still mount and use any MF lenses I might buy (I'm greedily eyeing the 50 1.2 for low-light indoor shots), and I can always upgrade the body or buy an inexpensive used manual body for occasional use and as a backup. Because of Canon's EOS mount, if I went Canon, I'd have to have two seperate <i>systems</i> if I wanted any MF lenses for my collection.<p><p>That more or less sums it up for me. Both systems are damned good, really...they each have strengths and weaknesses. And I even checked out Minolta. I was impressed, to be sure, but Nikon just had the large selection of glass.

[jim_seaman]

I liked the dedication to past users via the non-changing lens mount. I had an Olympus OM10 in high school and wanted to step up to a more sophisticated camera. At the time the N8008 had just come out and it was either that or the F4. I didn't have the money for the F4 at the time so I went with the N8008. The camera functioned flawlessly and worked well for what I was using it for. When it came time to replace it with another body 15 years later I looked to Nikon again. I walked out with an F100 and later with a used F4s as a second body.

 

I like the interfaces and general dependability that the Nikon's have delivered. Maybe I would have had a similar experience with Cannon but I felt 'safer' with Nikon and its backwards compatibility with regards to lenses.

 

Regards,

 

Jim Seaman

[astral]

In the late 60s I bought Pentax (Spotmatic) when that stuff was significantly cheaper than the Nikon brand and more "sexy" looking than the (better) Nikkormat. In the 70s - 90s I stayed with Pentax (MX, LX) because I had a big investment in their lens systems, but my photography got stuck in a rut.

 

In 2000 I re-discovered the clunky, all manual, Nikkormats that I should have bought in the 60s - and guess what? Nikkormats & F system lenses are often now just as cheap as old Pentax gear. With a Nikkormat and a old battered Nikkor 24mm my photography took off again.

 

In 2003 I dropped an old but nice Nikkor lens - it didn't break, but my insurers paid for a mint used Nikon F4s. My photography just got better. Ok, it's old but is still one of the best manual cameras around, handling almost any old (or new) Nikkor you care to stick on it: and it does AF too - clever stuff!

 

Why did I choose Nikon? Well, clearly I'm stuck in some sorta time warp - always 20 years behind!

 

 

Alan C Nottingham UK

[christiaan_phleger___honol]

Well, after shooting most of the 1980's with Olympus, when I began to shoot for a newspaper, nearly all of the staff used Nikon, one or two Canon (pre-AF). Olympus support of the pro gear was winding down, and finding the good lenses was much harder than Nikon, plus there was lots of used Nikon that I could find for a good price, great for a starving PJ. There was also the fact that there were a few lenses that Nikon offered that were very useful to me that Oly didn't, such as a 300/2.8, 135/2 and 85/1.4. I aquired all these lenses for very cheap from other PJ's who were switching (quickly) to AF Canon, so I got the 300 for 1000 (a steal in 1992) the 85 for 50.00 (yup! 50 dollars!) and the 135 with a 24 2.8 AF with a F-3HP and MD-4 (with MK-1, MN-2 and MH-2 as well as B and U screens) as a package for 1000. I picked up an FM-2n with 50/1.4 for 250 and was set,never looked back. I still have all that original equipment which gets used regularly. All my Olympus gear got traded for Mamiya TLR gear, which I also still have, and I think I got the better part of the trade.

I do think the reason I stay with Nikon is the lenses, and the durability of the pro bodies and manual lenses.

[steve_levine]

My high school (c1970)had loaner Nikkor lenses.I now own so many bodies & lenses,that it would be impossible to switch(unless I win the lottery).

[ellis_vener_photography]

Because I like the way they handle, and I like the viewfinder.

[kelvinphoto - arlington, t]

Love their film but hated their crappy DX world. Moving to Canon1Ds by the end of this year if Nikon don't solve the fullsizeframesensor.

[douglas_green1]

Cross compatibility between AF and MF lensmount, and the fact that Pentax (who also offers this) didn't make the kind of rugged motorized bodies that have been Nikon's stock in trade for 35 years.

[Matthew Currie]

In my late teens, after someone stole my trusty Sawyer Mark IV TLR, I went to a pawn shop and bought an old and shabby counterfeit "Leica" IIIb with a scratched, fungus-infected Leitz Summar lens for $35. It actually worked pretty well, and I later bought a real Leica body cheaply when the shutter on the fake one unravelled, but after a couple of years, I decided I wanted a sharper lens and a flash sync, and I couldn't afford that level of Leica. A friend let me play a little with his Nikon, and of course I loved it, so I went down to New York and bought a well-used Photomic F with a new 50 mm. 1.4 lens. I had actually been looking for a meterless F, but the Photomic was cheaper. That was in 1970. I've upgraded since then to an FTn and bought a bunch of other lenses, but I still have that 50.

[klix]

Perception, marketing, sales pitch, hearsay ... whatever you want to call it, pulled me into making Nikon (FE2) the first SLR I bought when I got my first real job out of college in the mid-80's.

 

Build quality, handling, viewfinder, and everything else, has kept me coming back to Nikon SLR's since then.

[steve_ql]

Why I chose Nikon:

The F2 was and still is an awesome 35mm SLR camera. No one

else made a camera like that one, "hand built- go anywhere".

 

Why I stay with Nikon:

Currently no one else makes anything with the quality of workmanship

that the FM2n/FM3a

and AIS lenses have for the low price. The used and rental

markets are also outstanding.

[rob_malkin]

I was taking a day off university and went to the library. I picked up a Don McCullin book (I am sure most know who he is but those who dont he is a great british war photographer who worked mostly in Biafra and Vietnam.) and i saw a picture of him with a Nikon. It was a Nikon that had a riffle round in it.

Not only did I choose Nikon after that day, I also chose to drop out of University to be a photographer.

 

Thanks Nikon and on McCullin.

 

rob

[david_eppstein]

My first SLR was a Nikon (EM), because my father uses them and still does. A good brand,

and sticking with the same brand meant we could share equipment. When I came to buy a

DSLR, some years later, I didn't feel any pressure to stay with Nikon because none of my

MF lenses would work well anyway, and ended up choosing the Canon D60, but I would

probably have been just as happy with Nikon's D100. My father has been considering

taking the DSLR plunge (he still shoots Nikon for 35mm film, as well as a medium format

system, Bronica I think, and an Oly E20 digital) and will almost certainly stick with Nikon.

[dan_fromm1]

Well, in 1970 in the US Army in Germany, defending western civilization from the communist threat. Wanted to take pictures of the scenic sights I was seeing. Knew that eventually I'd want to take pictures of fishes in small aquaria.

 

Used thread-mount Leicas were too expensive on the German market. If I'd wanted I could have made money buying them by mail from NYC dealers and selling them locally. And Visoflexes were and are scary. They convert a fine RF camera into a third-rate SLR.

 

The PXs then offered a confusing profusion of camera makes and models, all at prices much, much lower than US retailers charged. What to do? What to do?

 

There were no obvious grounds for choice, except that the cameras with full aperture TTL metering were easier to use than ones that had to stop down to meter. I didn't see the charm of the Pentax Spotmatic or Yashica imitations then, and I still don't. But Canons and Konica ARs and Leicaflex SL2s and Mirandas and Minolta SRTs and Nikons and ... all looked much the same. Contarexes were too damn much in every sense and the german leaf-shutter SLRs were sorry things.

 

So I asked my brother, who had recently got a BFA in photography and was scratching out a living as a pro photographer, which to get. Nikon FTn or Nikkormat and don't look back, he said. I liked the Nikkormat's feel better, to my taste an F with meter prism and normal lens is too front-heavy. And there I was. Haven't looked back, either.

 

I'm still with MF Nikons for 35 mm. There's just no reason to change. Other manufacturers' cameras work too. Back then and now too, no 35mm SLR system was overwhelmingly superior. They all work, each manufacturer's good stuff does about as well as the others'. So here I sit. I can't see tossing my kit to get something else that's no better.

 

If I'd gone Canon or Minolta, I'd be annoyed. If I'd gone Konica I'd be upset. If I'd gone Leicaflex, I'd be screaming mad. But back then, who could have known what the future would bring?

 

Cheers,

 

Dan

[david_h._hartman]

I chose Nikon in the summer of 1970 because it was a full system with reliability and versatility unmatched by any other camera company of the day. I chose for it�s often advertised compatibility and non-obsolescence. This has paid off well as my cameras range in age from 1979 to 2000 and my lenses range in age from 1965 to 2000. Nikon is still the best 35mm camera system today IMXO.

 

All the best (and only the best),

 

Dave Hartman.

[yuriy y. vilin]

Actually I've done "unthinkable" - switched from Canon EOS. Reasons were simple: better viewfinders, better flash system, better low-light AF sensitivity, a LOT better mirror damping and better handling of bodies. To me all that means much more than ECF, USM, IS, ETTL and other alphabetical mambo-jumbo in Canon land.

[justthings]

I'm not a Nikon veteran, in fact I'm only now building a Nikon system. I've previously owned and used a Rolleicord Vb, Pentax (me super) and Minolta (x-700) manual focus gear. I started wanting to obtain an autofocus body because of the variety of controls available on these newer generation bodies (such as spot metering capability). I decided on Nikon because of the long history of quality in both camera bodies and optics. I decided between Nikon and Canon in the autofocus world simply because of the backward compatibility of Nikon bodies and lenses - the ability to use older but still high quality Nikon lenses on an autofocus body seemed to give me a broader array of choices - much of the photography I do consist of landscapes and fairly 'static' scenes thus autofocus isn't necessary to me for these type of subject matter. Thus far my 'system' consists of an N70 (a much overlooked camera considering features and price point I think), a Nikkor AF 70-210 4.5-5.6 Zoom, a non-D AF 50mm 1.8, and a soon to arrive 24mm 2.8 AIS. Future aquisitions will likely include a macro (I'm leaning towards the Tamron SP90 at the moment), and an SB-26 flash. I'm having fun learning the capabilities of my new equipment and though have only had a few rolls of film developed I'm pleased with the results I have had thus far. I'm certain that had I chosen to invest in any of the major brands (pentax, canon, minolta) I would have been just as pleased but my decision making process led me to Nikon.

[charlie_garcia]

I love my F100 and my 18-35 and my 300 f4 af-s but i now feel that i should have gone a different route and gone with Canon. I shoot sports and action and i am an aspiring photojournalist. The Canon stuff thats coming out now, especially the digital stuff is just killing Nikon. Nikon needs to get their heads out of their asses. The D2H was out for a mere couple of months before Canon came out with the 8MP, 8.5 FPS Mark II. That camera laughs at the D2H. I feel like I made a terrible decision in choosing Nikon. Even the Canon film cameras are better, the EOS IV HS is 10 times the camera the F5 is, and Nikon isnt going to make an F6. The only thing Nikon has a leg up on Canon on are their flashes and maybe the Nikon build quality, and even that is crap. My F100 isnt sealed and dust slowly collects inside the camera. I hear the Canons are water resistant!!

sorry for the rant. im just losing hope in Nikon.

[Matthew Currie]

Dan Fromm writes: "If I'd gone Canon or Minolta, I'd be annoyed. If I'd gone Konica I'd be upset. If I'd gone Leicaflex, I'd be screaming mad. But back then, who could have known what the future would bring? "

 

I just remembered that before I decided on a used Nikon, I seriously considered a new Miranda Sensorex. That was a very nice camera indeed, but I couldn't quite swing a new one. It wasn't foresight that saved me, just dumb luck.

[craig_bridge]

30+ years ago is a long time to remember, but it probably had something to do with the feel and comfort with control placement in my hands compared to other offerings at the time (things I look for in all tools).

[Karim Ghantous]

For me, the question is "Why are you GOING to choose Nikon"? For over a decade I've been admiring Nikon SLRs. Never could afford a system until recently and soon I'll be in the club.

 

Of course there's always an intangible reason to go for a system but here's why I loved and am going to choose Nikon: build quality; removeable heads on several models; manual rewind on all F cameras; and most importantly an understanding of the photographers, what *they* want out of a camera and not technology for technology's sake.

 

Having said that I hope they get their act together re digital bodies. The D70 looks nice and we'll see what happens.

[jim_gifford]

I knew this retired photographer who had one too many cameras in his closet (at least his wife thought so). His newest toy was a Nikon EM kit with 50/1.8E lens and SB-E flash. He figured he had fancier cameras, and just wouldn't use the little NIkon much. So he quite happily sold me the whole EM kit, I think he wanted $100 for it all back in 1982 or 1983. He had run maybe two or three rolls of film through it.

 

I still have the EM and the flash, and although I have three different NIkkor 50mm lenses none is the series E I started with.

 

Have fun...

[douglas_greenberg]

Back in 1967-68 Nikon was the coolest, most prestigious of the Japanese SLR's. I started with a Mamiya/Sekor with a screw mount and then a Pentax H3v, but the photographers at our high school who were "truly serious" had Nikons, or at least Nikormats.

 

So when my father visited Japan in the summer of 1968, he picked up a Nikon F for me. It made me feel like I owned something very special. Seeing Nikons in movies like Antonioni's "Blow Up" didn't hurt. The F in its various permutations was what the professionals were mostly using at that time. So though in retrospect I'm not proud of it, my choice of Nikon had a lot to do with my own late adolescent concern over "image."

 

By the time Canon became a serious challenger to Nikon's top-level-system supremacy, I was pretty well committed to Nikon. My brother and a number of friends went to Canon, but not me. I still have that original F with an Ftn finder.