Too Loyal to Nikon



  • snakebunksnakebunk Posts: 935Member
    @kanuck: +1 for the clarification!
  • NSXTypeRNSXTypeR Posts: 2,148Member
    OK, but when you have eight lenses from one system, you don't change because another company's camera catches your fancy.

    If I was looking for something that was small and compact but decent, I would bite the bullet and invest in a second system, which would be Fuji. However, they are not making money, so I am not sure how far I would permit myself to get invested in it just now.
    For pros, it wouldn't be a problem, their income determines what sort of gear they need. But for us it generally is a problem. Ideally you should look beyond the gear. It really is a problem for us DX users, where there aren't wide DX lenses.
    Nikon D7000/ Nikon D40/ Nikon FM2/ 18-135 AF-S/ 35mm 1.8 AF-S/ 105mm Macro AF-S/ 50mm 1.2 AI-S
  • CaMeRaQuEsTCaMeRaQuEsT Posts: 347Member
    I am late into DSLRs, just starting since a year and a half ago with the D7100, but I have owned Nikon F equipment for more than 20 years, so my obvious choice was to stay in Nikonland to be able to keep on using my old lenses. That didn't quite work out as neither are my old lenses as convenient to use as the new ones nor was the D7100 the best balanced body for a DSLR beginner like me. Because of this initial decision to stick with Nikon I have now doubled my arsenal of Nikon glasses and it will be very difficult for me to switch to another system.

    But having now learnt the idiosyncrasies of the Nikon system, I was intrigued to see how the other better half lived, so I bought into the Canon system with an EOS M (that I have since replaced with the M2) with the 22mm lens. Well, actually the real reasons why I bought in was because it was dirt cheap, it fitted my need for a pocket-able large sensor camera and Nikon doesn't have anything comparable in both capabilities and price.

    I have since learned from owning both systems their pros and cons, and I'll say that, at the pixel level, I like more the way Nikon's files look, with a more natural grain structure (I would write "looks like film", but film never looked this awesome at ISO 6400, never mind lower ISOs) compared to Canon's more synthetic, analog-electronic look. Also, Nikon's wider DR is an absolute peach to work with in LR, even while being constrained by my D3300's lossy 12bit compression compared against the lossless 14bit files from my M2. And Nikon's colors, in both RAW and JPEG, look more pleasant and natural to my eyes than Canon's, which is odd as most people seem to prefer Canon's colors. But on the other hand, that tiny 22mm pancake lens from Canon is crazy sharp, the 18mpix files from the M2 using this lens are just at sharp and full of detail as the 24mpix files from the D3300 using the 50mm f/1.8G. And the build quality "feel" from the Canon M line is quite a step above, as you are really touching metal in the M/M2 bodies and the EF-M lenses. They feel dense, slick and expensive, even though they all sell for a song, just don't drop any of them, because they will dent just like old metal camera equipment. My D3300 and my AF-S lenses, on the other hand, all feel hollow, plastic-ky and cheap, but will take a light beating and not show any signs of it.

    My conclusions are that Nikon is riding on a great tech wave thanks to their usage of 3rd party sensor makers, especially Sony, which Canon either because of tech patent availability/conflict reasons or because of their own fab process limitations cannot keep up with the current state of the sensor making art, but to offset this weakness Canon is increasingly focusing on making sharp lenses throughout their range, something which Nikon seems to be a step behind. In the end, they both kind of equal out and are great tools for taking great photos. As for video, Nikon has the edge over Canon in IQ, but Canon has the edge in control, also their IS is a bit better than Nikon's VR here, but both get trumped in all aspects by Panasonic, Samsung and Sony.
  • MaxBerlinMaxBerlin Posts: 86Member
    Holy schmokes folks. Nothing will come close to what full size lenses will do on a full size camera and then viewed on a full size wide gamut screen. iPhone photos start to break apart as soon as you enlarge them off your iPhone. Little lenses and little sensors will never match up to the IQ of a well designed FF camera (like the D810) and a lens that can resolve and beyond the sensor without a minimum of CA, distortion and field curvature. The Otus 55, 85 and Apo-Sonnar all come to mind.
    My non-commercial blog:
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 4,262Member
    iPhone photos start to break apart as soon as you enlarge them off your iPhone.
    Yup. I haven't used a current generation model, but I doubt the new models are better than mid-range point and shoot cameras. The reality is that these small sensors are very noisy even at base ISO. Fine for 4x6, and maybe 8x10 prints, but even then it's a stretch to get any real sharpness out of them.
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 3,409Member
    Format size is the ultimate bottleneck for sharpness. Departures from that rule essentially boil down to marketing decisions, such as the decision to give the current generation of DX sensors a higher pixel density than FX sensors. This is an advantage if you are a BIF photographer using a very sharp super-tele, at least into the Nikon marketing department decides that it wants an FX sensor with a higher pixel density.
  • tcole1983tcole1983 Posts: 981Member
    One that enters the realm of dSLR cameras must have some loyalty to whichever brand they choose to shoot. Buying and selling equipment can get expensive and wasteful. However outside of that I don't feel loyalty to buy everything Nikon. I did get an S31 because it was the least expensive waterproof camera that did what I wanted, but had another brand offered something better I would have gotten that.
    D5200, D5000, S31, 18-55 VR, 17-55 F2.8, 35 F1.8G, 105 F2.8 VR, 300 F4 AF-S (Previously owned 18-200 VRI, Tokina 12-24 F4 II)
  • MsmotoMsmoto Posts: 5,396Moderator
    Well, my thoughts today....the versatility of a particular camera system is what determines what I am shooting with. While Nikon is the primary brand I use, for smaller format I have an older Olympus Pen E-PL2, at $200 in close out, this is a real performer.

    Travelling I-40, Route 66 06.25.15-4

    While this is only a small image, it does the job well of conveying the openness, and at a print size of 8" x 10" would be acceptable. Now, the same shot on a D800 would have a different feel, and be able to go bigger.

    The Oly cannot of course do the job of much of the available light stuff I use the D4 to shoot, and the long lens sports with the huge cropping. And as the largest print I have produced in recent years is 65" x 30" printed on aluminum, the file size being 1.4 Gb...out of the D800E, probably could have been done as well on a Hassy or Phase One, but I doubt the results would have been significantly better.

    I have no issue with using other glass on my Nikons....

    Whatever works, is what I would use and if I had a Canon I doubt the results would be any different than what I get out of my Nikon. And, I would love to have one of the Sony bodies with Leica glass, but alas the lottery has not come my way.
    Msmoto, mod
  • Vipmediastar_JZVipmediastar_JZ Posts: 1,708Member
    My first DSLR was Nikon and even though I tried the Fuji X series my loyalty is to the Nikon body. I have 3rd party glass and 3rd party speedlight and couldn't be happier.
  • CaMeRaQuEsTCaMeRaQuEsT Posts: 347Member
    edited July 2015
    Oh, I almost forgot, I've been wearing Nikon glasses too for more than 20 years! Their titanium frames have been the best in the market: light, thin, rugged and stylish, what else can I ask? Oh well, some Giorgio Armani designs will be great, but not Giorgetto Giugiaro please.
    Post edited by CaMeRaQuEsT on
  • Vipmediastar_JZVipmediastar_JZ Posts: 1,708Member
    I seen them advertised lately and at Walmart optics center. I thought it was just the glass I was not aware that they had frames. I'll have to check them out next year.
  • CaMeRaQuEsTCaMeRaQuEsT Posts: 347Member
    I wish there were optics shops here with Nikon crystals available, they seem to have come up with a new "digital" solution that allows a larger part of the glasses to focus clearly for the eyes, allowing peripheral vision, instead of just the central part (I am myopic, have astigmatism and starting to have presbyopia). I get my frames on eBay, they usually are significantly cheaper than buying them at your optometrist, for example I get my Nikons at 70% discount.
  • spraynprayspraynpray Posts: 6,330Moderator
    Good tip @CaMeRaQuEsT.
    Always learning.
  • retreadretread Posts: 561Member
    I have had all Nikon glass for 47 years and an getting my first non Nikon a Tokina. It will give me 3 zooms from very wide to telephoto. I will fill in with good old manual primes if needed. Somehow I don't feel guilty at all.
  • LennonLennon Posts: 4Member
    I am tied to a platform. Tied to higher resolutions, use of tripods, top of the line lenses, etc. Two camera setup always. Being tied to a single brand makes no sense to me.
Sign In or Register to comment.