On Monday, December 16, 2002, at 10:28 AM, David Wheeless wrote:
In considering the purchase of a new $1000 35mm body, when I compare theSounds like you've drunk the Kool-Aid!
two, Canon simply seems to offer more functionality for the dollar.
Something about this makes it hard for me to get excited about staying with
Nikon when it appears that I'm getting less return for my investment - name
recognition only goes so far.
Is this vision I'm having logical or have I just forgotten to take my
medication?
But yes. I think that, on the whole, Canon migrate their new technologies down the product line more quickly than do Nikon. So this means that with Canon you get, for example, USM lenses of different types appearing across the product range. Nikon, on the other hand, include Silent Wave only with their expensive super pro lenses. IS is available in fairly affordable lenses (28-135, 75-300) as well as the giant white telephotos. VR is restricted to Nikon pro lenses. So if you're shopping in the low to mid price range, Canon offer some pretty good deals. At the very top end I don't know if either maker is particularly better.
Naturally Nikon have their advantages. If you already have a good lineup of quality manual-focus lenses you can still use them with many mid to pro modern Nikon cameras. If you need interchangeable viewfinders (not just screens) you can do it with Nikon F cameras but not EOS cameras. And so on. It really depends on your needs.
- NK Guy
--
PhotoNotes.org - a free information resource for the Internet
photographic community, created and maintained by tela design.
http://photonotes.org/ * http://teladesign.com/
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
