Why did YOU choose Nikon?

[ist_petit]

I like the metal feeling of the Nikon manual systems, that's the reason I prefer FM2N,F3HP to the others.I can be the master of the camera and don't need to worry about anything as power,etc.

[roy_g]

Back in the 70's it was between Pentax and Nikon for me. I chose the Nikon FT2 because it seemed better built so thats what I got. I still have and use the FT2. I also bought a Nikon FE when it came out because it had A priority & better flash. The FE is what I use the most as of today even though I also have a Canon A2e & Tokina 28-70/2.8 Pro.

 

I also chose Nikon because I think they make great optics. My 50/1.4, 105/2.5, 180/2.8 ED are excellent even by today's standards, heck even my hunting rifle (don't hunt anymore) has a Nikon scope.

 

Nikon has been good to me so what more can I say or expect.

[david_h._hartman]

Yuriy,

 

I�ve got some swamp land in Florida, a couple of bridges and a beautiful 1961 Corvair Greenbrier with a two speed Powerglide available. I know you�re interested. Call collect!

 

Regards,

 

Dave Hartman.

[john_n._wall]

I wear glasses and came to hate cameras with poor viewfinders -- especially Canon viewfinders. I picked up a Nikon 8008s and have never looked back. Now have two F4 bodies which are even more enjoyable to use than the 8008s. They get the job done and are a pleasure to use. What more can one ask for?

[mark_gillett]

Cause of the Paul Simon song. I don't shoot Kodachrome anymore though.

[ky2]

Dave, I've done the same. I've owned an EOS/3 (wonderful machine, honestly), but crossed over to Nikon. Got some swamp for me? ;)

[lex_jenkins]

Primarily for the 28/3.5 PC-Nikkor.

 

I *was* a Canon FD system user. The Canon tilt/shift lens was too expensive and I didn't need the tilt feature. Meanwhile my Canon bodies were aging, with the future for parts and expert servicing looking pretty bleak. Oh, bodies like the AE-1 and even my old FTbn are fine for occasional shooters but I want gear that will last for as long as I intend to shoot 35mm. My F3HP and FM2N will remain serviceable for at least that long.

 

So I bought into the Nikon system with a lens and built a small but very useful arsenal from there. About two years later, no regrets.

[arnabdas]

Well I'm not a veteran but thought would still chirp in. I chose Kinon Nikon for these reasons

 

-- They've always handled better than any other camera in my hands (except Pentax K1000)

 

-- They seemed dependable, not having changed their mount in a long time

 

-- I knew ultimately I'd have the complete lineup of those delicious Micro-Nikkors.

[discpad]

<i>I�ve got some swamp land in Florida, a couple of bridges and a beautiful 1961 Corvair Greenbrier with a two speed Powerglide available. I know you�re interested. Call collect! </i> <br><br>

<b>I want that Greenbrier! Besides, I used to race a 71 Nova with that very same 2 speed PowerGlide... It used to bang into second at about 60 MPH, with the engine screaming.</b>

[joseph_walsh]

I was a Canon user but became involved with two other photographers in a joint venture. They were both Nikon users and had way more equipment than I. In the interest of compatability, I switched to Nikon.

In retrospect...bad move.

[ccfutbol]

In this order: quality for the price in lenses, reliability reputation, excellence in metering, and viewfinder.

[discpad]

I chose the Nikon "system," not directly, but as a result of my dSLR choice. I chose a Fuji S1 Pro, which, for shooting auto racing, is about as good as it gets with its minimum (and quiet) 320 ISO. Then, I bought my lenses; and then it grew from there.

 

After that, it came down to choosing a film body (first an F601m, then a recently-totalled N90).

 

By the way, you *can* use a MF lens on a dSLR -- I use my Nikkor 55mm f/1.2 AI/S lens on my N60 -based S1 Pro all the time for low light indoor shots w/out flash!

 

How do I meter my dSLR with a MF lens, the masses ask in unison?

 

LCD panel... And the Histogram!

 

Take a shot, and then look at the LCD. Hit the histogram button and look at the general shape. As long as the lump is in the center to the left, I'm OK. Remember, an LCD has tremendous shadow detail, allowing me to pull it up in Photoshop if needed; but once those pixels starting the 255,255,255 mark, they're blown out. Period. Full stop.

 

[incidentally, photographers moving from slide film to digital have little trouble with handling the tight exposure latitude; while (especially wedding!) shooters who use color print film often have trouble migrating to the digital workflow, since they generally just "point & shoot" with pro gear.]

 

Cheers!

Dan

[jimc5423]

I chose Nikon in the late '60s because I had worn out 2 Practicas and a Mamiya and all I had left was a Leica IIIf and a Yashica TLR. My boss offered me her pride and joy Nikon Ftn w/ 50mm lens for $200 and it had a light meter! It wasn't my main camera though, as I picked up a used Topcon cheap and carried that to rock concerts and road races (Sebring etc) as no one knew what a Topcon was and it was less likely to get stolen. My father is still using that old Ftn and he's 77.

[david_h._hartman]

Sorry, Yaron, I just can't read. It's a thing about opposites (to/from); they sometimes confuse me. That and I�m trying really hard for the coveted "Buffoon Logo."

 

Sorry, Yuriy since you switched "from" not "to" EOS all I can offer you is a better viewfinder, a minty fresh DE-3 at slightly more than it�s worth.

 

---

 

How�d I do? Did I save a little face or do I still look like the fool I am?

[kelly_flanigan1]

Here I liked the quick change bayonet; like my older Exakta 35mm slr system. The lessor Nikkormat FT had a cool synch speed of 1/125 for my big strobe.....Nikon had instant return mirrors; Full aperture automatic diaphrams and full aperture metering... many of the cheaper offerings used stop down metering. The commitment to the Nikon Bayonet was also cool; Nikon had alot of stuff for closeups; the Speed Magny for 4x5 test photos.....LBJ was President; gas was 25 cents; we were heading for the moon; we studied about the earth cooling in school; and the possibility of another dark age with glaciers; "global cooling"......But Viet Nam was abit more of a worry.........

[ebogaerts]

I chose Nikon for a few different reasons. When I first got into photography, a buddy of mine was using a 6006 and had a few lenses. He also had Moose Peterson's Nikon Handbook, and I borrowed that for a few days. I do have to say that I was very much impressed with the sheer variety of Nikon lenses available. I was also blown away at all of the accessories that could be had.

 

So yeah, I went out and got an FM-10. Over the years I steadily developed a case of NAS and now have a fairly good stock of lenses and have owned a variety of Nikon camera bodies.

[melvin_bramley]

My first SLR was a Mamiya MSX500 The viewfinder was awfull.When I finally bought a Nikon FE I could not believe the viewfinder,bright & easy to use.I have since bought a FE2 which is even better/brighter.Unfortunatley for the pocket book I have also bought a F2S,F100 & a nice black red dot F.All of the cameras are being used & each is different but all have a good viewfinders.My heart is still with the manual Nikons & lenses.....& my 6X6 Bronica!! BTW I use B&W film.

[jim mucklin]

I like Dan was in Germany in the 70's and bought a Miranda when the only other guy on the base had a Nikon F and had to hand it to me to try out.Last year I bought my first AF Nikon, no reason to rush into it. In answer to your question, the quality of the bodies and the glass.

[ilkka_nissila]

I use Nikon because their high-end cameras come with viewfinders which allow comfortable viewing with my glasses on. Also, when I started out, Canon's prime lenses were exquisitely expensive, Nikkors were more affordable.

[greglyon]

I bought a Canon FD system 22 years ago. Within months the FM2 came out and I felt like I'd chosen the wrong brand, but I stuck with Canon until 5 years ago when my whole FD system except an auto-bellows was stolen from my car. I went out and bought an FM2n.

 

I chose Nikon this time because of the range of bodies. FM2n that doesn't need any battery at all, to F5 and D100. Lenses seemed to be of comparable quality, price and selection at the time I purchased.

 

Every now and then I get a bit of Canon-envy, but I'm happy with my decision. The D100 is a camera that is comfortable, natural to me while the 10D isn't, and there's no Canon equivalent to the FM2.

[jay_.]

I became a Nikon user back in the early 70's, and still have the Photomic FTn bodies and a gaggle of what were originally non-AI lenses which I had factory-AI'd in the late 70's. I stuck with Nikon through to the F5 and F100 but the lack of matrix meter coupling with teleconverters and extension tubes (except 3rd-party brands)and the advent of Image Stabilization were serious drawbacks that I ignored for a while because of Canon's plasticky bodies, but when the 1V was introduced, with the metal body and 45-sensor AF array it was too much to resist and I switched. But I will never part with my F's and I still use them. To me it will remain the best 35mm SLR ever made.

[Brian1664876441]

It's the lenses. Sharp and high contrast.

 

It's the feel of the bodies; solid, precise, and dependable.

 

It's the compatibility. Manual focus SLR's and Digital AF using the same lenses.

 

I started with an FT2 in 1976, picked up an F2a and added a Nikon F Photomic while still in school. In the past 10 years, I have started shooting with the Rangefinders. My cameras range from the Nikon S (home) to the D1x (work).<div></div>

[terry_rory]

Price and convenience. I was after a Minolta Dynax 7 and 28-105mm but the Nikon F80 and 28-105mm f3.5 AF-D were a much cheaper combination.

 

I am not after the last word in quality optics (I have Contax SLRs/Carl Zeiss lenses for that) and just needed a capable, big, cheap point & shoot that fitted into a Hadley bag for non-serious/daytrip stuff where only Portra 400UC gets used.

 

I have no loyalty to Nikon but it seems to take OK photographs.

[photojim]

1. Nikons fit in my hand better than any of the cameras on the market at the time (1994) did. (I still find that to be true.)

 

2. I could buy used manual-focus Nikkors for inexpensive prices to build up my system faster.

 

3. I could buy an FM, FM2/FM2n or FT3 to get a mechanically-timed cold-weather body that would take my AF lenses. (G lenses didn't yet exist and I don't own any.)

 

4. I can use modern lenses on my old cameras. There was no 20-35/2.8 manual-focus lens produced, but my AF one works great on my FT3 and FM2n. (Okay, so I bought both.)

 

5. I like using manual gear, but I want the option of using autofocus equipment and still having cross-compatibility. I don't want to *have* to buy two parallel systems.

 

I don't regret the choice.

[lachaine]

I've owned one 35mm camera or another since 1975. All were Pentax SLRs (an SP1000, a K1000, a K2 and an MX - all bought brand new. I decided to try autofocus in 2003. Tried all the main brands, and Nikon seemed to (1) have the most solid build of the mid-level plastic-bodied cameras, and (2) the most professional-like interface at that level. So I ended up with a Nikon F80. Later that year I started missing the metal, manual and mechanical feel, so I got an FM3a. Nikon is the only company that is still building a classic metal/manual/mechanical 35mm SLR, and without much change in appearance either. Besides, when I bought that first Pentax in 1975, I had really wanted a Nikon anyway, but they were too expensive.