Why did YOU choose Nikon?

[scott_warn]

Because of a 25 dollar Nikkormat FS. Way back in 1973 I purchased a Demo unit of the Canon F-1 just before heading off to college. The Demo had problems (cracked meter, torn shutter, meter not working) that required repair and part of the purchase agreement was that it would be fully serviced when I came to pick the camera up at Thanksgiving. Since I would be cameraless, I picked up a beat up Nikkormat FS and a Vivitar 100mm f2.8 for a total of 50 dollars for use while the F-1 was being repaired. Went back to the store at Thanksgiving, picked up the camera, and guess what, back at college I discovered that the shutter was still torn, the meter cell was still cracked, and the only thing that had been done was that the switch for the meter had been short circuited. I should have checked it out completely before I ever left the shop but was young and way too trusting. I went back at Christmas and had a raving fit and demanded that my money be refunded, this the store was unwilling to do, they wanted to send the camera back for more repairs. After me raving for another 10 minutes or so, the owner finally did to agree to allow an even trade for either a new Canon F-1 body or a Nikon F2 body. This was about a 25 dollar benifit for me since the new F2 was 25 bucks more than what I paid for the Canon F-1. Because I already had the Nikkormat, I decided on the F2. I still have, and use that F2 and consider it the best purchase I have ever made. Since then my collection of Nikons has grown to encompass everything from the S model rangefinder to the F5.

 

No regrets except that Nikon now appears to NOT desire me hanging on to that beloved F2, that is why I hate those infernal "g" mount lenses. Realistically, it's probably reasonable for Nikon to eliminate the cost of the aperture ring and the body couplings for that ring, they do have to compete. The problem is that I hate buying a lens that will only work on certain bodies, it offends the Scottish in me. I may end up getting a used 80-200 f2.8 instead of the new 70-200 VR simply because I just can't bring myself to buy a lens that won't work on all my bodies. The dilema is that the just announced D-70 sounds so appealing and with the magnification factor that VR would be really handy.

[david_rivera2]

I chose Nikon because of the ease of use. Later on it was the excellent flash system with my N80 and SB28 flash. Plus, Nikons enable you capture great photos.<div></div>

[david_rivera2]

Here's picture number 2<div></div>

[gerhard_engelbrecht]

Reverse compatibility. Started photography with a Minolta XD-5 & 50mm. After much research realised that Nikon has the most versatile system.(I was not sure which direction my photogrpahy was going in and did not want to be limited by the camera system).

 

Wanted to get the current pro model F4 but could not afford it. Looked at the F90x but wanted manual rewind. Settled on a used F3HP+ MD-4 and Ni-Cad battery which I still have. My main body now being the F100.

 

I'd love to own one of each of Nikons Pro models from the F to F5 but finances not allowing as yet.

[martin_hupfer]

but I come from Leica R8 und M6.

 

Now I haven't any Leice. Nikons are more praktical and of course cheaper. On used marked there are a lot of lense and bodys to buy and the quality is as good.

F4 and F100 have a wonderfull viewfinder, bright an clear. They have a motorwinder, spotmetering and the F4 you can change the viewfinder.

 

I like the mechanic and feeling in my hands.

[andre_noble4]

Originally purchased an FE2 in 1984 because of the mystique of the Nikon name. I stayed with them because of high quality in their construction, especialy of their lenses. There is something about Nikon equipment that makes you want to pick it up and hold it and play with it, and use it.

[jwenting]

I started out with a Minolta over 20 years ago. At the time I'd have loved a Nikon (they were THE SLR to have at the time and still are today) but couldn't afford one.

1995 I purchased a 2nd body, again a Minolta, and I was happy (again, a Nikon was out of my league though closer).

When that camera was stolen in 2000 I went looking again for a Minolta, thinking a Nikon would still be too expensive.

The only reliable camerastore in town told me (I'd been doing business with them since about 1997) they'd stopped carrying Minolta because of constant problems with the cameras I decided to look at Nikon anyway.

I also looked at Canon, but didn't like what I saw.

 

As a reliable customer they gave me an excellent deal on an F80 with some lenses, a deal I could afford (though barely) and I went with it.

Had they not offered me that deal I might well have stuck with only my old Minolta (which I still have today as a backup) and never gotten to use a Nikon at all.

 

So for me it's been a longtime dream of owning a Nikon finally come true (and currently I own 3 Nikons and still that old Minolta which was my first true camera and has enough emotional value that I am unlikely to ever get rid of it).

[dan_fromm1]

Another couple of random thoughts.

 

Many of the replies come down to the fact that Nikon gear isn't too bad. That's true, but it isn't always the best for the job. Not that there's much else in 35 mm still that's significantly better, but there are larger formats.

 

Some years ago I got rather frustrated with my flower pictures, mainly shot with a 105/2.8 AIS, on tube if necessary, KM, flashes. There was no way 'round the facts that getting good detail in the bloom required giving up its setting and cramming the setting in lost good detail in the bloom.

 

So I went up to the cheapest flexible larger camera I could find, a 2x3 Speed Graphic. What it does well it does better than anything that uses 35 mm film. End of discussion. This is not to say that a Graphic is a replacement for an SLR. I mean, its basically a Leica III or so interpreted by, say, Baldwin-Lima-Hamilton or the Altoona works. But the larger negative beats 35 mm, and not by a little.

 

Cheers,

 

Dan

[aza]

Pedigree ...

[joel_blacher]

I'm an analog nature photographer. For me there simply isn't a better system made. As good of a system? Certainly debatable. Different systems? Yes, many. As reliable and fieldworthy a system? Probably not, in a longitudnal context. I use 7 different Nikon bodies and a battery of lenses; everything from a simple FG-20 (very basic and inexpensive) to an F5 (arguably the finest all-around film camera ever produced), and I have yet to have a field failure in 20 years (backpacks, boats, wind, water, heat, cold, mud, sand, you name it). If the equipment has been rated to perform, it has...and beyond (bodies, lenses, flashes, and accessories). I've never lost a shot because my equipment wouldn't do what I needed it to. I still have my first Honda Accord; it has 300,000 miles on it and the original clutch. Nothing has ever gone wrong and it still drives beautifully. That's why I bought it, and that's why I bought another one when I wanted a new car. Any company that can make products like that can have my business.

[shoshana]

The viewfinder. And the handling.

 

Seriously. My husband was buying me an autofocus slr for a gift ... and he (mistakenly) thought I'd be getting something like a Canon Rebel. But... I was used to my Pentax SPII and I just couldn't get used to the viewfinder in he lowest end cameras. I didn't know about the pentamirror - I just knew it was hard to see with.

 

So I checked out Pentax, Minolta, Canon and Nikon.

 

This was Nov 1999. I looked at a bunch of cameras. Minolta and Pentax were eliminated pretty quickly - I couldn't find a camera I liked. Maybe I would have gone with the Minolta 7 if it had been out, but I'd known people w/ Minoltas and they seemed to need repairs regularly. Pentax I just couldn't find the camera with features I wanted - and they were hard to even find here.

 

So... it was Canon or Nikon. I'd already figured out which Canon lenses I wanted - but not the camera. The Elan II was ok... but not great. I don't remember what I didn't like - I think the viewfinder still. So I went to check out the N70. I liked the viewfinder but my husband thought the camera was too far out there in terms of that sunray deck thing. I didn't want a N60 so we looked at the N90s. It had just dropped in price because of the arrival of the F100 and wasn't very much more than the N70.

 

I really liked the viewfinder and the balance. I compared it to the F100 (and I kinda liked the F100 more at the time) but the price difference was crazy. The F100 was $450 more than the N90s - wat too expensive if I wanted to get accessories like lenses or a flash.

 

I'm still very happy with the N90s altho I do wish it was quieter. But that's my only regret. I have the lenses I want, and even if I wanted a VR lens, they are still way too expensive for me.

 

'shana

[eric_.]

Yaron, because I just bought a nice F3HP with 85/1.4 AIS from someone you know well...;-)

[john_guarnieri1]

Wow, I can't believe how many responses have come in so far. For me, I chose Nikon because I was able to use my manual focus lenses on my new AF cameras & could likewise use AF lenses on manual bodies. Unfortunately, Nikon has abandoned "backward compitablity" on its newer AF cameras, and all but its most expensive top of the line digital camera. If I had only (or mostly) manual focus lenses and was thinking about doing mostly digital work, I would buy a Canon and sell my manual lenses. There really is no incientive to stick with Nikon if you are thinking about concentrating on digital and are on a tight budget with a lot of Nikon manual lenses in your aresenal.

[al_tan]

Simply, love at first sight. Just love the way those Nikons (that I have) feel in my hands.

[paedric]

my best friend has a complete system. lenses, flashes, accesories...all i needed was a N90s

and I could shoot whatever i wanted. then I got my own Nikon 105 f2. THEN i was ALL

ABOUT nikon. no really. i started with what i had to use (my pal's gear) to use the lenses

that he had and then built my own system over the years around the body that i owned.

then i bought bodies to use the lenses that i had bought for the old body. i also own

Pentax, Rollei, Kiev, and Bronica. i shoot with a camera and if it does what i want then i

commit. i sort-of held everything against my experience with nikon. the n90s (and now f5)

just did everything - manual and automatic - that i ever needed. and I got pix that i was

really happy with. so i thought good cameras should do that. i'm sure there are other good

cameras (like canon and contax and hassy et al...) but i sure dont regret any choice i've

made - especially the nikon stuff. always performed well. great glass. good customer

support and great compatiblity (swapped lenses in a pinch at a gig with a generous/

helpful amateur who handed me a very old but compatible AiS lens off his FM when

another photog hit and broke my lense with his protruding gear). and i love the feel of the

body in my hand.

 

p

[Carl Stone]

Because Nikon offers the quality and the accessories to allow a for a fine 35mm

photo system.

[edwardchen]

Yaron, how about posting "Why did YOU choose Canon" in Canon Forum?

I believe the responds are very opposite from what I read here. :)

[ky2]

Edward :) The Canon Forum? "Cause the marketing ads bought me?" ;)

 

Seriously now-- I had a Canon EOS/3, it was a great camera. But I didn't enjoy it much as I do my Nikon F's. Go figure :)

[nowell_wisch2]

I used a Nikon F in highschool in 1966. It was my first SLR experience. My father gave me his old, beat up Leica IIIf for my 10th birthday and I used it for five more years. Over the years I have owned Nikon, Olympus, Canon and Leica. I always return to Nikon because I have "Nikon hands".

 

Everything just fits right and the lenses turn in the right direction.

 

My grandson (6 years old) is now shooting with my old D2H since I purchased my D200. He is the next generation of Nikon shooter. Our family owns an N80, D50, D70, D2H, D200, 5600 POS, 11 lenses, four Nikon flashes and numerous accessories. We're just Nikon guys.<div></div>

[toan_nguyen]

For me, when it comes to AF glass, Canon beats the pants out of Nikon. I used Canon for 10 years before I made the switch late last year. I did it for one reason - the 200-400 VR. It fits and serves my shooting style.

 

Having said that, for the life of me, I still don't understand why a Nikkor 500 f/4 AFS II cost more than the Canon 500 f/4L USM IS?!?!

 

Both systems give me great results. But for now, the 200-400 VR serves me better!

[jeremygray]

When choosing my first camera in early '07 I was leaning towards Canon. I had picked out the Rebel XT as my first

camera, and went to the store to get one. I got to the store and held the XT for the first time and thought, 'ergh, this feels

cheap.' So I picked up a D80 and thought, 'ooh, this feels better.' I bought the D80.

 

I wish I could say more thought went into my purchase, but it really came down to how the camera felt in my hands, and

the D80 felt right. And then when I got a D300, that thing felt super right.

 

Looking back and having done so much more research on photography as a whole, I'm very happy with my decision in

picking Nikon. Nikon's camera bodies are set up well to me and their lenses are great.