NSXType-R said:
So you actually like Canon placing their on/off buttons randomly on each tier of camera?

*trolling*

lol. No! I like the placement of the ISO and WB buttons on the Canon bodies. Having to move my hand from the lens to change ISO can lead to missed shots. That is why I use auto ISO more than I should. Otherwise the Nikon buttons should stay as they were pre D800/D4 (I dislike the placement of the recording button on the new bodies). I'd also like a mix of the Canon and Nikon hand grips. I find the notches for resting your fingers in on the Canon grips more comfortable. Then again, I like the depth of the Nikon grips. Ah... to have the best of both worlds!

R8R said:
+2

My ideal body would be Nikon's buttons, Canon's video implementation, and Pentax's weather sealing.

Yes - nice.

PB PM said:
Canon and Nikon have been copying each other for at least the last 20-30 years, so that wouldn't be anything new. The only real difference between the two come down to UI and button placement. Personally I would like to have elements of both designs in my ideal DSLR (although more of them would be from Nikon).

So you actually like Canon placing their on/off buttons randomly on each tier of camera?

*trolling*

PB PM said:
Canon and Nikon have been copying each other for at least the last 20-30 years, so that wouldn't be anything new. The only real difference between the two come down to UI and button placement. Personally I would like to have elements of both designs in my ideal DSLR (although more of them would be from Nikon).

+2

My ideal body would be Nikon's buttons, Canon's video implementation, and Pentax's weather sealing.

PB PM said:
Canon and Nikon have been copying each other for at least the last 20-30 years, so that wouldn't be anything new. The only real difference between the two come down to UI and button placement. Personally I would like to have elements of both designs in my ideal DSLR (although more of them would be from Nikon).

+1

Canon and Nikon have been copying each other for at least the last 20-30 years, so that wouldn't be anything new. The only real difference between the two come down to UI and button placement. Personally I would like to have elements of both designs in my ideal DSLR (although more of them would be from Nikon).

>I hope Nikon don't copy Canon

Yeah, I hope so too. I hope they don't copy Canon's bodies.

iris chrome said:

Now I hope Nikon is watching what Canon is doing and take home a lesson or two from all of this.

I hope Nikon don't copy Canon

But if they did, then yes I might have a look at other brands ( are there any ?)

In other news Canon today identified an issue affecting some 1D X units when autofocusing at f/8. Here is a snippet from their notice:

"It has been confirmed that auto-focusing may not function at f/8 aperture on some Canon EOS-1D X Digital SLR Cameras with firmware Ver. 1.1.1. We offer our most sincere apologies to customers using this product who have been inconvenienced by this issue. The support measures for this phenomenon are described below."

I personally find it commendable that Canon admitted to the problem and even apologized for it. And just to be clear, Canon could have just so easily rolled out a new firmware update and fixed the problem silently but they didn't.

Now I hope Nikon is watching what Canon is doing and take home a lesson or two from all of this.

would never happen!too much time & money invested in Nikon. 1st real job was in a camera store,and I tried every brand in the store & just loved the Nikons.Nikon would have to magically disappear for me to think of using another brand.

nm

msmoto said:
We grumble, and I include myself, about the quality issues with Nikon. The D600 is one blatant goof and they have admitted it. But, the vast majority of D4's and D800's are working well, doing the job. Unfortunately, here on a forum, a lot of folks come because they have problems, or in my case because I have no paying job.

But we see a highly biased sample in this forum, most of us love Nikons, hate the troubles if we happen to have some. And, for me, I must remember Nikon is still recovering from two huge disasters.

And, Canon is no doubt very similar in service, etc., and if one is honest and examines the reviews of lenses, Nikon is very much tops. Canon has good lenses, but the ultimate winners are almost always the Nikkors. (DxOMark)

Other than the oil issues and the aperture control during video recording what was wrong with the D600?

I don't think I'll be jumping ship any time soon.

Ooops! New to the forum

Yesterday I watched some television and was surprised by the number of Canon commercials for D-SLR cameras. They must have a surplus! Canon has a huge dealer network and minimum stocking requirements that come back to bite you in the "butt" when things don't sell.

For serious photographers Nikon has proved itself to be a company that is more dedicated to its optics. Also, Nikon is a bit more conservative in their marketing which in the long run is a philosophy that generates more professional and enthusiasts as "return customers."

Nikon's consumer grade cameras are well built but living off the Nikon "label" when going up against similar Canon and Sony products in the big-box store, internet marketplace where consumers jump ship on price points and packaging.

My take is that the best bet is to plan the future with the "glass" and camera bodies that remain lens friendly to the legacy lenses. Electronics will come and go as quickly as sensor and processing improvements make yesterdays obsolete. My $.02

^ Didn't realize the D7100 was out yet. Seven, you must be very well connected ^_~

Re "too invested to switch"

As far as DSLRs go

the thing I have "invested " in the Nikon System is TIME

I am simply not interested learning a new system when my Nikon gear does virtually everything i want

does any one else, have anything that approaches Nikon's CLS

but that does not apply to the ( edit P7100)

If I lost it, I don't think I would buy another

I would be tempted by something like the RX1

>Why change brand though?

I'm not interested in changing brands. Not right now and not anytime in the foreseeable future either. My last post was in reply to the "too invested to switch" argument that I hear in almost every photography forum nowadays. But it was all hypothetical and in the spirit of the subject of this thread which is "what would make you jump ship?"

For me, my first DSLR was a Canon XSi (as a kid I also dabbled with my mother's Ricoh any chance I got but that doesn't count now, does it? ;p). At the time I bought the XSi, I didn't have much brand preference but was leaning a tad bit towards Nikon. However, a friend of mine who shoots Canon was upgrading to a 50D and offered to sell her XSi along with a couple of lenses for a very good price so I took her offer. I figured I could always sell the XSi if I decided to switch later on but I actually ended up keeping it and now I'm even thinking of getting the MP-E 65 for it (but that's another story hehehe).

Now, I'm not trying to say that selling an XSi with a couple of lenses is like selling all your equipment when you invested a few thousands in them. That's not my point here. My point is that after the XSi, even though I loved it, I made the switch to Nikon but it wasn't because of any glass envy or better Nikon sensors or anything like that. It actually was because of the way I felt about Nikon as a company.

First, Nikon never changed its lens mount. This is huge to me because it tells me that Nikon is committed to their product and willing to work with what they have and modify it to fit their need instead of quitting on it when it becomes limited. Another thing is that Nikon USA offers a 5 year warranty on lenses and that says confidence in their lenses. One other little thing is also the inclusion of the hood and the lens pouch/case with every lens. That used to mean a bit more before Nikon USA rolled out their minimum selling price policy as Nikon and Canon street prices used to be very close at the time.

So you see where I'm going here? I kinda got into Nikon because of their spirit and much less because of their tech. Honestly, the only way I'd switch is if I see Nikon caring less for its customer base and more for its bottom line.

On prices I'm seeing SB700's new for £205, used for £190, 14-24's new 1200 used 1000, 24-70's 1100 new, 900 used. Off-brand plummets by comparison.

Why change brand though? If the opposition bring out something new, Nikon will beat it next time and if you didn't need it up to now, it will not kill you to wait until you next change body or lens and that way you stick with the rest of the system?

Unless you've got more money than sense of course, then you gotta do what you gotta do and you will always be broke.

>I also love the "I'm too invested in lenses to switch" comments from the same people who tell us " buy expensive pro lenses because they will last a lifetime and you can always sell them for near what you paid for them"

+1

The ONLY equipment you'd have to sell to switch are your camera(s), lenses, battery(ies)/grip(s) and flash(es) but only if you bought brand specific flashes. Out of those equipment, lenses are the most likely to be the most expensive but are also the most likely to retain their value the most. Camera bodies would probably come second as far as cost and retaining their value... anything else is not that expensive comparatively speaking. For example, battery grips (Nikon brand) sell for about 10-20% of their respective cameras and you're unlikely to have more than one per camera. An SB-910 is about only 12% the cost of a D800 and an SB-700 is about 25-30% the cost of a D7000 and if you have invested in more than one flash then you are also more likely to have invested in more lenses too which is more likely to bring the total cost of your flashes vs. total equipment down.

The other thing that I find most people don't comprehend when they make the "too invested to switch" argument is that the equipment they invested in has already given back a return on its investment in the form of time owned and usage. Now whether that was profitable or not is up to your talent and skills as a photographer. If I buy a brand new Camry for $25K today, would I expect to sell it for the same price in 10 years? No, of course not. Even if I babied it all that time and kept it in as new a condition as possible, its value would still depreciate. So why should we think differently when it comes to cameras and lenses?

We're also living at a time where it has never been easier to sell your used stuff. There is eBay, craigslist, dedicated forums and even Amazon (but wouldn't recommend it). About a year ago I bought a used 70-200 VRI off of eBay for $1500. Used it for about six months. Loved it but was too heavy too bulky and didn't use it as much as I hoped so I put it back on eBay. How much did it sell for? $1500... and it was an auction style listing not a buy-it-now. Now granted, this was a used lens to begin with but my point is that many people are willing and ready to buy your used equipment. Heck, I even got inquiries about the lens from as far as Russia!

hawkdl2 said:
I also love the "I'm too invested in lenses to switch" comments from the same people who tell us " buy expensive pro lenses because they will last a lifetime and you can always sell them for near what you paid for them" , then 1. Trade up on every new iteration of vr and 2. claim they would loose too much money switching. Which is it then? I almost only buy used lenses, trade up or over whenever I feel I want to trade up or own a new lens and almost always resell lenes for close to what I paid for them. The "I'm too invested" argument is specious.

If you only have a few lenses it doesn't make a difference. When you have 10+, flashes, remotes and modifiers specific to models, cords, cables, filters, batteries, specific software, battery grips, etc. then you are in the 10s of thousands of dollars on stuff that is not even worth %50 for what you paid for it new. It all adds up and it becomes one hell of a large outlay of capital.

As Mike said, changing due to a major advancement is the only think that would make me think of changing or if something changed in my work or life that would make me move. Anymore, Nikon and Canon, and even Sony are so close and don't have all that much of a difference, I'm not sure why people would move. Nikon's CLS is still the best flash system out there, but Canon has caught up in many regards.

Hi all,

"buy expensive pro lenses because they will last a lifetime and you can always sell them for near what you paid for them"

I don't think I've ever said something like that. Lenses are like anything else, they depreciate. Good lenses give good results, and if you have good lenses, you won't have to buy them again. You have a good point about VR, but you will have to subsidize that margin of benefit, if you see it.

@msmoto - I'm sure I'll win each week, that's why I buy my single ticket...

@Gentoo - It's a pretty easy answer to 'why' change gear, there would be something offered that makes one's shooting easier or results indispensable, something like syncing flash some years ago or rear sync shutter or high speed shutter - these weren't 'always' available, and while they are take for granted now, 30 years ago in an SLR format, one would change systems for it.

@bjrichus - My memories are clearer everyday. Although my daughter and wife disagree with that. Naturally, I don't really know them anymore.

My best to all,

Mike

I chose Nikon a few years back as I returned to photography based heavily on how the camera felt in my hands. I''ve owned Minolta, Ricoh, Olympus, Canon and Nikon p&s and slr/dslr over the past 30 years and never onced felt either allegiance or obligation to any brand. I would switch in a heartbeat if there was some compelling reason to do so. But since both canon and nikon make very good cameras and lenses, I can't imagine what the reason would be. I'm glad nikon cameras are ahead in photography features at the moment but I would not be concerned in canon came out with something just a bit better feature or two. Who cares? I can't outshoot my D800 at the moment.

I also love the "I'm too invested in lenses to switch" comments from the same people who tell us " buy expensive pro lenses because they will last a lifetime and you can always sell them for near what you paid for them" , then 1. Trade up on every new iteration of vr and 2. claim they would loose too much money switching. Which is it then? I almost only buy used lenses, trade up or over whenever I feel I want to trade up or own a new lens and almost always resell lenes for close to what I paid for them. The "I'm too invested" argument is specious.

>There you go everyone, you got your sub $2,000 FX camera and now you know what was sacrificed to get it there.

I'm not sure if by "sacrificed" you mean an inherent design problem or a QC issue but if it is the latter then wouldn't that standard also apply to the made-in-Japan not-so-cheap D800 (i.e. left autofocus issue)?

I really don't know why Nikon wouldn't own up to issues which have been widely documented from photographers all over the world. Some may just chalk it up to culture but it's not just that. While Japanese culture does sometimes have a "save face" attitude and will at times forgive certain mistakes, it does not tolerate continued mistakes. Now whether the folks at Nikon HQ abide by that culture or not is another issue.

What this seems to me here is a severe case of bad customer service coming directly from the top regardless of cultural boundaries. And if there is anything that would scare me away from a company it's bad customer service. I don't mind issues with the product themselves, to me that's a fact of life. But when I don't know if the company I bought from is going to stand by it's product and admit a problem when there actually is one... yeah that does make me think about alternatives.

So what does that mean? Does it mean I'm going to switch? No. Not yet and not anytime soon to say the least. But I'm keeping watch and I'm sure many others are doing just the same.

Why should a company like Nikon/Canon etc publicly acknowledge known issues? Because they are publicly owned (if they are on the stock exchange). Not acknowledging issues, which could effect the stock price could be considered defrauding a stockholder.

Yes issues exist, nobody here is saying Nikon should make perfect cameras without any flaws ever, because that is almost impossible with modern manufacturing techniques.

PB PM said:
Canon Japan has admitted numerous things, like the recall on the 5D MKIII for the light leak through the top LCD. I'm sure there are other issues, but I don't pay much attention to Canon, since I don't use their gear. I think you'd agree (based on Nikon's track record) that if the D800 had a problem like that, nothing would be said, or done about it by Nikon.

If I did switch to something it might not even be Canon, since as I noted earlier I hate their RAW files. I think in the end it would come down to Fuji or Olympus (more likely the former). I wouldn't consider Sony on principal.

I don't see why it matters if they publicly admit wrong doing. Seems like splitting hairs to me. Now their actions of offering free fixes is why I like Nikon. Admittedly, I have only had to use their service a handful of times, it has always been second to none.

The D600 spots just crack me up. "We need a FX system for a cheaper price," "FX can't cost that much," "There is no reason Nikon can't release an FX for under $2,000." There you go everyone, you got your sub $2,000 FX camera and now you know what was sacrificed to get it there.

I think it is foolish and naive to believe that something as complex as a camera, lenses, or any electronic or mechanical product will never have issues when new versions are released. Relatively speaking, you are not paying enough for that guarantee. If you want that type of service you have to go to Leica, Hasselblad, and the other boutique very high priced systems that have individual service.