where there’s smoke there’s forum fire
Oh and as far as "quality control issues" with Nikon - get over it. ALL companies have issues. Sometimes there are more, sometimes less. Sometimes all at once.
Nikon has a pretty good record if you look at the last 40 years or so.
It's not an automobile. You won't careen off a cliff if something goes wrong with your shutter or the WB is a little green or there is some dust. Relax.
Who's freaking out? It's easy to say, if something goes wrong it's "okay" when photography is just a hobby. If you make money from your gear it's a different story.
All I'm saying is that if Nikon's quality control continues to degrade I would consider switching, not that I'm selling all my Nikon gear and buying a 5D MKIII.
Gentoo said:
What's the one thing Nikon can do that will push over the edge? What can they do that will finally cause you to switch to Canon?I've read a couple of times that if they don't get their act together with their video, this could cause some to jump ship. While I agree that Nikon needs to get this right or be left behind, for me it's not the reason to leave. For me to go to Canon, Nikon would once again start ignoring us wildlife shooters. They need to get their act together on their super tele lenses already.
So what would be the reasons for any of you?
PS, I think we may have had this or a similar discussion before so if we have, please forgive me. I'm too lazy to dig through threads right now.
A 400mm f5.6 prime with VR, not too heavy and <1500. I would buy any makers camera body to go on such a lens.
PB PM said:
All I'm saying is that if Nikon's quality control continues to degrade I would consider switching, not that I'm selling all my Nikon gear and buying a 5D MKIII.
I think you have missed all of Canon's missteps in the past few years. They didn't admit any wrongdoing either. The grass isn't greener on the other side. :)
I have only rarely seen any Japanese company or from any other country on the Asian pacific rim admit to any error/wrong doing. That's their culture.
At this point, Nikon would have to go out of business for me to change. There comes a point where you have too much of an investment in gear and familiarity that deters most.
I am partially considering switching now. This is odd, considering my circumstances.
I very recently switched from Canon to Nikon, selling off my Rebel XTi and lenses to move to a D5100. At the time I saw Canon re-using a 4 year old sensor in their Rebel line and didn't seen any improvements from them. The sensor in the D7000/D5100 seemed to be much better than anything Canon was offering in that range.
I then quickly sold that body/lenses off and moved to a full-frame D600. But now I am suffering from the D600 spots on sensor issue. Whether this is dust or oil, I am very upset by this. I spent a lot of money to buy the full-frame body and lenses and lost money selling the DX equipment. It doesn't seem like Nikon is taking good care of me, they even require me to pay to ship my spotted-sensor-body to them. Given that they are aware of this issue, that doesn't make me feel like a valued customer, since this is their fault.
I hope this resolves well in the end, but I am not feeling like a happy Nikon customer right now.
TaoTeJared said:
I think you have missed all of Canon's missteps in the past few years. They didn't admit any wrongdoing either. The grass isn't greener on the other side. :)I have only rarely seen any Japanese company or from any other country on the Asian pacific rim admit to any error/wrong doing. That's their culture.
At this point, Nikon would have to go out of business for me to change. There comes a point where you have too much of an investment in gear and familiarity that deters most.
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.
@roombarobot:
You remind me of the guy that is in a hurry in his car so he keeps changing lane only to find he is constantly picking the wrong lane and ends up going slower than everybody else!
Slow down man, give the less jumpy early buyers chance to kick the bugs out then buy and stick with it until 6 months after your next choice is in the public's hands and change then. That way you will have the chance to realise that Nikon is the better choice when all is considered.
This from a guy that didn't buy his D7000 until recently - worked for me!
@ sevencrossing...... I do not understand this..... was absolutely certain I was going to win with my single ticket. LOL
msmoto said:
@ sevencrossing...... I do not understand this..... was absolutely certain I was going to win with my single ticket. LOL
HAHAHAHA ... Me too. ;-)
I'll be playing about with 6x6 over the next few months (I have done a CLA on an old Ansco folder) and I might pick up a Bronica outfit ($350 or so) or even a Hassy ($950 or so) if the results are as good as I recall from the dim and distant past. No lotto win required...
Be interesting to see how good the results from a scanned neg are.
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.
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.
>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.
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.
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
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.
>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!
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.
>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.
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
^ Didn't realize the D7100 was out yet. Seven, you must be very well connected ^_~
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
Ooops! New to the forum
You must log in to post.
