Since I recently "made the shift" to Nikon I thought I would contribute a
(lengthy) response in this thread.
I became a serious photographer when I went to Grand Teton National Park in
the summer of 1996. I spent four months carefully analyzing my needs and
in Jan '97 I bought a Minolta Maxxum 600si. That camera has seen the top
of the waterfalls in Yosemite, has been within a few yards of an Alaskan
brown bear and has seen almost every natural history subject in California.
I have gotten great pictures with it and I grew to love its capabilities
and ease of use. All that for only $350 brand new. Not bad.
However, as my photography was getting more serious, I knew I needed a
sturdier camera body and better lenses. I always figured I'd stick with my
Minolta equipment as I was for the most part happy with the lenses I had (a
70-210/4, 24-85, 50/1.7 and a 300/4). But when I was calculating the costs
of a new 80-200/2.8 and a professional body, I thought twice about where
I'd invest my money. So I started exploring other options, namely Nikon
and Canon.
Canon was quickly ruled out as I didn't like their focus on "unproven"
cutting edge-technology and their de-emphasis on a really rugged body.
It's a personal preference and I don't want to get into flame wars. I just
want to buy a camera and be using the same one 15 years from now. Also,
USM lenses weren't much of an issue because just then Nikon had announced
their 80-200 and 28-70 AF-S lenses.
I thought twice about Minolta, as they had just released their Maxxum 9.
Actually, I think I would like using that camera more than my F5. It was
very much based on the 600si, but built out of steel, sealed from dust and
moisture and chock full of professional features without any technological
"wow" whiz-bang features. My biggest complaint about the camera - and
those on the Minolta Mailing List know this well - was the fact that the
Maxxum 9 didn't have real-time mirror lock-up, only a 2 second delay like
on some Canon models. The concept of taking a macro shot of a flower and
then having the breeze pick up in those two seconds just wasn't that
appealing.
So my options were narrowed down to Nikon. I needed a versatile camera
that would work well for sports and nature, as I have become increasingly
involved in shooting sports for the local newspaper. That narrowed my
choices to the F4 and the F5, and the F5 stood head and shoulders above the
F4 in AF performance. The N90s and the F100 were not options as they have
neither 100% viewfinder nor mirror lockup.
So in mid-January I ordered an F5 and an 80-200 AF-S. I have since bought
a used 300/4 and hope to round out my lens selection soon with a 24/2.8,
35/2, 55/2.8 micro and a 105/2.8 micro.
<<I am happy with my choice, and that is what is important. I think other
people too have their reasons as to why they chose Nikon. And I hope they
did not blindly choose this brand.>>
I am happy with my choice too. It's been a little tricky getting used to
my F5 because I learned photography on the 600si, but I can't tell how much
I appreciate the amazing AF of the F5 and 80-200 AF-S lens. I shoot NCAA
Division I basketball with that combination and it is extremely fast (much
faster than the newspaper's A2 / 70-200/2.8 USM combo). As I have been
busy with classes, I regret not being able to go out and use my F5 more
often, but it is always there when I need it. It is a bulky camera but I
don't regret making the switch.
Dan
