A touch of reality when buying any gear

2

Comments

  • kenadamskenadams Posts: 222Member
    edited March 2013


    Btw, Toyota at least can deal with their technical issues. And if you care to read up on their enterprise culture, you'd be surprised I think.

    NSX, true, nobody has to buy what Nikon offers, and every sane company has niche products and classifications and price categories so on and so forth. However, I think Mansurov's comparing Nikon cameras to cars was pretty spot on. The problem is not that a lower end model doesn't have the same feature set as a higher end one at a better price - that's just a ridiculous demand, of course. What I find irritating is how the technology is there to be used but then is intentionally disabled. Aperture control in live view for instance. The D7100 featuring the autofocus the D600 should have got. I though that was about cost cutting, so why does the D7100 have it now?? I think you can find a better balance between models, categories/intended purpose and their features instead of putting out products that leave the consumer with the constant feeling he's not the targeted clientele, although he's perfectly willing to spend money. If you're a rounded out car company but decide to put a 500 hp plant into a station wagon, I think you should *also* have a more affordable model that caters the additional inside space to families instead of only to race care drivers.
    Post edited by Msmoto on
  • Maybe another view. Selling figures 2012 in Japan only.

    http://nikonrumors.com/2013/01/01/the-best-selling-mirrorless-camera-for-2012-in-japan-nikon-1-j1.aspx/

    What will be the sales share in 2013 for the D800, D600.

    A very small part of all the amateurs buy the D800 or the D600. Even a smaller part the $6000.- D4.

    The rest of the world looks at the 3xxx, 5xxx series with a kit lens and some of them buy a 7xxx camera as the most expensive they ever bought. Editing progam is Picasa, the advanced amateur has Photoshop elements, which is far too difficult and they make fantastic photo's.

    We think mirror-less should have a APS-C sensor, what is Nikon thinking a 1 inch sensor, so stupid. Ehhh, the Nikon 1 J1 is the best selling in Japan, fun.

    I think that Nikon's marketing priorities are not the D800, and the D600.

    Normally I buy a camera about a year after first release. The price is right then and what is very new now, the issues are known. OK I bought the D600 too fast. I wanted a full frame for my lenses. I sold all my DX lenses (except 18-200mm), which I payed a total of 1900.- euro for, they are not that cheap.

    For these I bought the 24-70mm f/2.8 3 years ago, the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR II last year and the 50mm f/1.8 a couple of month ago. For 1000 euro more I have now the best quality ever and these lenses last forever with me and that is always cheaper at the end. There will be better lenses in the future, but it is ok for me now.

    Changing brands? Nikon and Canon has 80% + part of the market. Canon camera's has problems too. When I can choose from 2 brands, why change.
    Those who say it can't be done, should not interrupt those doing it!
  • MsmotoMsmoto Posts: 5,398Moderator
    @JJ_SO

    " we keep on buying and preordering and for a simple signal to NIkon it's too long and not drilling a hole through the big walls of Tokio headquarters."

    Oh, how true....my 105mm f/2.8 is due tomorrow from Adorama.......

    Msmoto, mod
  • JJ_SOJJ_SO Posts: 1,158Member
    And my mindlessly overpriced batterygrip to D7100 will arrive in next two days :D

    You tell me 8-|
  • DenverShooterDenverShooter Posts: 407Member
    I never had any oil spots on either my D7000 or D800E or my D4.

    I never had any moiré issues with my D800E.

    I have never put much faith in the "complaint of the minute in the inter web". Folks spend way too much time behind the computer being paranoid about their gear and not enough time learning how to use it and taking pictures. This is the reason I don't do Photoshop. :) By the time you fix it you could have spent the time shooting a better image in the first place.

    The ad agencies I work with have a raft of Photoshop Acolytes who are more than happy to take the 200 MB TIFF files I shoot and spend hours messing with them. Its not my bag.

    I like going out and shooting just about anything that moves or sits still long enough to get it framed up in the viewfinder for clients big and small and I still get a thrill when my images run in catalogs and periodical or even on websites.

    I just got back from a 10 day industrial shoot and ran 500+ images a day out of my D800E and not a spot of problem out of it. It rained, it was muddy, it was messy, it was high humidity, there was dirt everywhere. We rented a 4WD Gator which we drove like we stole it. We got it stuck up to the axles and took 5 guys and a really big come-a-long to dig it out and all the while the D800E just performed. Wiped it and all of the gear off with a damp washcloth in the hotel room every night and swapped the batteries and out the door the next morning for more fun and excitement.

    I have the trinity of Nikon zooms 14/24 F/2.8 24/70 F/2.8 70/200 F/2.8 T20EIII, teleconverter 10.5 F/2.8 fisheye 600mmF/4 400mm f/2.8 and on order the 800mm F/5.6. When properly used they make incredible images. I don't worry about MTF or whomever has a Ouija board and generates what test results or who has won what specification battle or who's on first.

    The gear is better than I am and thats just the way I want it to be.

    Off to media day at the Auto show tomorrow...

    Love the smell of new cars in the morning, it reminds me of victory. :)

    Denver Shooter
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 4,493Member
    That's all well and good when someone else is doing the photo editing for you, you're lucky. I suspect that very few of the folks here have people who do the editing for them.
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • JJ_SOJJ_SO Posts: 1,158Member
    @Denver Shooter: Nice story, especially the part "spend more time taking photographs".

    But then... it's your perspective. If you like to be only the high quality material delivery guy, fine. I just like to do all the steps because I want to be responsible for the final product - but if I'd get a list with pictures I have to deliver in decent quality to somebody else, that could be fun, too. Your part obviously is. But an exception amongst camera owners. And if everybody did what you're doing, there would be rarely somebody in a forum answering your input :D
  • TaoTeJaredTaoTeJared Posts: 1,306Member
    TTJ, I'm always smiling when people say, a company is not listening to the market. And mean "the company is not listening to me and some people I know" :D
    Seeing that you didn't read what I wrote, as you just commented on there being a "list" you may find it interesting to actually read it. Many of the items were discussed in the article that was the basis of this thread (which is painfully obvious you did not) and other items Nikon has not delivered on that other companies have and done so with success and positive fanfare.

    As you are showing it is much easier to ridicule, dismiss, and scoff at everyone rather than to read the rather good, although as MikeG pointed out rambling article about Nikon's current state of affairs with customers and the conclusion that photographers should be more conscientious about making purchases so they are able to move to other manufactures offerings when Nikon falls short.

    Commenting on others remarks and trying your hardest to make them the topic rather than real topic of the tread is getting old and tiresome and is childish. This seems to be a rather paltry habit of yours. Reading other threads this evening, I have noticed everything you have posted in the last 2-3 weeks was done so to scorn others ideas, ridicule opinions and full of dismissive comments and nothing relevant to the topic of the thread or even the topic of photography. If you have something to add about photography, please do so - but if all you are here to do is to scoff at other's posts keep it to yourself or go somewhere else. All of us here enjoy sharing, discussing, and yes debating various topics about various items. I can't speak for everyone, but I do believe most everyone here enjoys hearing others ideas on topics. You seem to be here only to add commentary to other's posts and nothing of any substance to the topic of the thread or photography.
    D800, D300, D50(ir converted), FujiX100, Canon G11, Olympus TG2. Nikon lenses - 24mm 2.8, 35mm 1.8, (5 in all)50mm, 60mm, 85mm 1.8, 105vr, 105 f2.5, 180mm 2.8, 70-200vr1, 24-120vr f4. Tokina 12-24mm, 16-28mm, 28-70mm (angenieux design), 300mm f2.8. Sigma 15mm fisheye. Voigtlander R2 (olive) & R2a, Voigt 35mm 2.5, Zeiss 50mm f/2, Leica 90mm f/4. I know I missed something...
  • TaoTeJaredTaoTeJared Posts: 1,306Member
    ...What I find irritating is how the technology is there to be used but then is intentionally disabled...
    That is one thing that I understand the business idea behind it, but as Mansurov, and you, I do not get why they feel the need to do it. It seems to me, it could put various lower bodies just that much more enticing over other companies products.

    @DenverShooter - Lucky buck! Wish I didn't have to spend hours behind the desk but I don't have that luxury of someone else doing the editing. Much of my desire not to be in front of the screen is why I enjoy watching gear releases - If I can spend $$$ on a lens or other gear that cuts my time behind the computer, that is a bonus for me. But as the article focused on, if I were one of those unlucky few who got a camera with issues, that is time dedicated to something I really hate to deal with and is very unproductive.
    ....my 105mm f/2.8 is due tomorrow .....
    You will love it!
    Starting test images for my summer project!
    105VR - D300
    image

    D800, D300, D50(ir converted), FujiX100, Canon G11, Olympus TG2. Nikon lenses - 24mm 2.8, 35mm 1.8, (5 in all)50mm, 60mm, 85mm 1.8, 105vr, 105 f2.5, 180mm 2.8, 70-200vr1, 24-120vr f4. Tokina 12-24mm, 16-28mm, 28-70mm (angenieux design), 300mm f2.8. Sigma 15mm fisheye. Voigtlander R2 (olive) & R2a, Voigt 35mm 2.5, Zeiss 50mm f/2, Leica 90mm f/4. I know I missed something...
  • JJ_SOJJ_SO Posts: 1,158Member
    @TTJ: It's not only a rambling, but also far too long article, as your response as well. As to what I read or not - speak for yourself. I've not the duty to read every boring, useless list of what Nikon does bad - that is subjective. And if you need to judge other people, why not giving a good example and mind your own tone? It's not my fault, that you can't deal with humour or don't have a sense for. I just feel sorry for you, but never mind.
  • MsmotoMsmoto Posts: 5,398Moderator
    This thread is getting a bit close to the name calling part.....let's keep it a bit more easy going, please.
    Msmoto, mod
  • TaoTeJaredTaoTeJared Posts: 1,306Member
    edited March 2013
    @TTJ: It's not only a rambling, but also far too long article, as your response as well. As to what I read or not - speak for yourself. I've not the duty to read every boring, useless list of what Nikon does bad - that is subjective. And if you need to judge other people, why not giving a good example and mind your own tone? It's not my fault, that you can't deal with humour or don't have a sense for. I just feel sorry for you, but never mind.
    So you don't read the article, don't bother reading a people's posts and have no idea what the tread is about - but feel it is necessary to attack people on the few words that you skimmed over in their post? Seems to be a waste of time to me.
    I fail to see anything humorous about making lowbrow commentary on other's posts that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Zero humor is coming across in your posts - quite the opposite is though.

    If you have no interest in the thread - then don't comment. That is what everyone else does.

    Post edited by TaoTeJared on
    D800, D300, D50(ir converted), FujiX100, Canon G11, Olympus TG2. Nikon lenses - 24mm 2.8, 35mm 1.8, (5 in all)50mm, 60mm, 85mm 1.8, 105vr, 105 f2.5, 180mm 2.8, 70-200vr1, 24-120vr f4. Tokina 12-24mm, 16-28mm, 28-70mm (angenieux design), 300mm f2.8. Sigma 15mm fisheye. Voigtlander R2 (olive) & R2a, Voigt 35mm 2.5, Zeiss 50mm f/2, Leica 90mm f/4. I know I missed something...
  • KnockKnockKnockKnock Posts: 398Member
    Circling back to S&P's culture comment: the reverse perspective on Americans (& British as well?) is also interesting.

    It is unique as a culture which holds high regard for admitting mistakes, learning from them and moving on. I think the business reality and capitalism helps build this. Mistakes happen, QC affects the bottom line, PR affects the bottom line. So we've come to a point where the most profitable thing to do is to quickly find the issue, fix it, and tell everyone ASAP.

    In many other realms, this is considered insanity. And I agree, Japan has built into business their family honor, so losing face is not something they're comfortable with.
    D7100, D60, 35mm f/1.8 DX, 50mm f/1.4, 18-105mm DX, 18-55mm VR II, Sony RX-100 ii
  • TaoTeJaredTaoTeJared Posts: 1,306Member
    I think we should be careful not to put too much weight of the "Japanese" culture of "face saving." This same thing happens in the west just as much in the far east. I never heard Microsoft call Windows ME a failure nor banks saying their practices caused the financial meltdown.

    We wish companies would "find the issue, fix it, and tell everyone ASAP" but it rarely happens. We also would like to believe that QC does effect the bottom line, but I have been in many situations where it doesn't at all. There really is no way to know if it does, or doesn't unless Nikon makes a statement of such.

    It is an embarrassment only if they believe it is a problem. I don't think they see the various issues as a problem but just as an acceptable error rate of production.
    D800, D300, D50(ir converted), FujiX100, Canon G11, Olympus TG2. Nikon lenses - 24mm 2.8, 35mm 1.8, (5 in all)50mm, 60mm, 85mm 1.8, 105vr, 105 f2.5, 180mm 2.8, 70-200vr1, 24-120vr f4. Tokina 12-24mm, 16-28mm, 28-70mm (angenieux design), 300mm f2.8. Sigma 15mm fisheye. Voigtlander R2 (olive) & R2a, Voigt 35mm 2.5, Zeiss 50mm f/2, Leica 90mm f/4. I know I missed something...
  • tc88tc88 Posts: 537Member
    I mostly agree with TTJ's take on this. I feel that Nikon is just betting that most people won't notice those focus/dust issues early enough, or bother with the hassle of return/exchange. For the people who really cared and returned the products, they just chalk it up as the cost of doing business. So I feel for consumers, the best approach is to just return the products if it's not up to standard.
  • JJ_SOJJ_SO Posts: 1,158Member
    One could ask for getting some numbers: How many cameras of those 3.5 Millions DSLR Nikon made last year had real issues/need a repair? Of course, Nikon doesn't tell. Of course, neither Mansurov nor TTJ know. otherwise one of them would have posted the number (and the source of it). And in the Internet one small scratch can so easily be blown up to an "issue".
    Which company is publishing their failure rate?
    The rest of all the "issues" are merely completely subjective. I - and a lot of others - am not disappointed on most of the things because I can take pictures with only one camera at a time. It doesn't help much to have a camera for each day, even if each would be perfect. I wonder also, if all (!) those people complaining around what Nikon did so badly would really buy the product at the end, if Nikon perfected it in the way "it should be"? When it costs not "if only it would have, then I would buy it" fantasy-cash? How many of the people complaining about bad quality marketing are willing to pay for improved quality? On one side roaring about high prices, on the other side demanding more for less money? Please feel free to deliver a good example by doing that for yourself.

    As for numbers: Even this forum doesn't tell how much users are registered - but if I look at the presence list, I hardly see more than 3 dozen at a time. And the very same Forum starts already to celebrate a 80-400 at a very steep price and with a very thin collar for it's tripod mount. I'm looking forward for the next "issues".

    It's easy to tell others, not buy products of a manufacturer I have trouble with. Especially if I already own what I need. But I really wonder why even bigger boycots were not everytime succesfull. And I wonder, if Nikon would realize an effect at all. At least, I wonder how much of the "boycotteurs" would run to the next store if the D400 becomes released? And has fantastic specs? Maybe we should also keep in mind that not many manufacturers had to deal with a close nuclear meltdown near Sendai and a flood in Thailand. These were not only peanuts.

    They already made 37% less money than their target was. What would you do in Nikon's situation? Listening to all the comments and try to make an impossible camera (which should fullfill all desires?) There's no need to boycot. If Nikon does a bad job and keeps on doing it, why did they survive the last 96 years from their foundation in 1917? How much other photographic companies can look back on such a period? In America? Europe? Zeiss and Leitz come in my mind, but after them? No big players like Canon or Nikon.

    Now, I see myself not as defender of Nikon - even if it looks much alike. But the question remains "who had made you a promise that a manufacturer has to do what you want"? "Who made you promise to stick with a manufacturer while constantly disappointed with his products?"
  • kenadamskenadams Posts: 222Member
    I think you're completely missing the point of this discussion. The debate about Nikon's QC issues is two-tiered: One, the fact remains there is/was a problem, and it isn't a small scratch. Two, the fact that Nikon firmly ignores it is exactly what is blowing things out of proportion, *not* the internet. People who don't even have the problem but lack the correct testing procedures think they do have it and send their gear back and create a lot of buzz on the internet. This is not about an ethic right or wrong, it's about swarm behavior, a game, really: such is the situation, deal with it in what way is best for the company, you have 10 days... go! It is about the correct business and marketing strategies to avoid a situation that can easily get out of your hands and bankrupt a company.

    Same goes for feature sets in finished (working) products. Nikon does not have any obligation to listen to any single one customer. But it would be a smart move not to ignore large groups concerning a sensible request. People are shouting for a thing. You, and Nikon, would apparently rather scream "how dare you?" than go "hmm... let's give them the thing!" and make a shitload of money that way. The idea behind that is not really hard to understand, I think? Analyze your user base, then cater to their exact needs. If you're really smart, you not only react to requests but are at the forefront and act as innovator and tell people what to request next. See Fuji and their retro styled X-Series. There's nothing altruistic about it, only cold, hard cash, and if the users get what they wanted, it's a win/win situation.
  • JJ_SOJJ_SO Posts: 1,158Member
    edited March 2013
    Actually, kenadams, I'm not shouting, just for the protocol. Then, money is made by Apple - without listening to customers by just telling them what they will want - even if they don't know it now. 37% less cashflow than targeted of Nikon doesn't mean 37% more for Canon and Sony and others - others had to live with bad results, too.

    But if it comes to admitting failures, I don't see many companies doing this. And - Nikon has the right to be as ignorant as they think they can afford. See the managment of Fukushima... But saying this, doesnt't mean I'll stick with them until the very end ;) They can be as stupid as other companies and ran against a wall and tell other people "yes, we're arrogant! And still making money, ha!" even for this behaviour you find samples over all industries. Actually, they're not doing this, they just stay silent, more or less.

    As for Fuji and their retro cameras: How many units do they sell? Numbers, please - instead of saying "they make shitloads of money" I'd be interested in their return of invest. What did they have to do to get their X's ready? And these are - all perfect? I also read different opinions. Now, if Fuji and the rest are so really cool, why is it so difficult to become No. 1 for them? On the other side, suggesting people to switch their DSLR systems would convince me better, if the very same person tells me "and I'll give you the money you paid for your gear". And, too, convincing me the switch would not only give me different but also much better gear!

    Do you want to tell me, the buyers of this ammount of Nikon DSLRs and other cameras did not get what they wanted? Well, then I don't understand why they bought? Gee, I'd like to see Nikon doing innovative things, being them open in information, listening to customers - but they still are in a comfortable situation that people are buying anyway. I don't see myself as a slave of Nikon. If they delivered only crap, I'll be gone. But they aren't and others deal with issues, too and are not much better in fixing or communcating them.
    Post edited by Msmoto on
  • tc88tc88 Posts: 537Member
    edited March 2013
    JJ_SO, to be honest, your postings seem to be incoherent and people don't know exactly what your points are. But maybe that's an attribute of an artistic person, I don't know. :) I'm just going to point out a few things.

    (1) Your debate style seems to be (a) disregard the existing data, (b) do not supply your own data that support your arguments, (c) asking other people tons of questions to prove more. While you may "win" an argument this way because people will just give up, other people see that.

    As an analogy, how about I ask you these. Can you provide Nikon's tolerance on the AF points? Do they test all the AF points? What's the tolerance on each individual point and between left/right? Are their testing consistent and repeatable? Since you most likely can't provide these information, how can you prove Nikon is doing the right thing? I hope you see the point.

    (2) You keep on questioning forum members whether they would do this or that, or just complaining. We don't know each other in real life, and your perception of each of us may be totally wrong. So forget about those. Again, that's just an attempt to frame people, typically used by people who can't substantiate their own arguments.

    (3) Some of us believe that when there is smoke, there is likely fire. At a minimum the internet information tells us what to watch for. In my own mind, the lens rental data on D600 dust clearly shows systematic issue, not to mention numerous other reports. The AF misalignment, I have personal experience. Now you may have strong conviction otherwise. That's perfectly fine, and as someone says, to each his own. We are not trying to convince you. We are just putting up the discussion so that people can make their own informed decisions.

    Thanks for reading.
    Post edited by tc88 on
  • JJ_SOJJ_SO Posts: 1,158Member
    It was a pleasure to read, tc88 because there were no insults in your post. Thank you for your clear style.

    1) a) talking about existing data: Where can I look at it? I'm not negating the quality problems, but I want to know how much cameras really were delivered with issues - and I know the data what Roger Cigala provided and he also said after about 3000 shutter releases the spots are likely to disappear. I heard, Nikon is now releasing much more test-shots before they pack the cam - which is time-consuming an not curing the root of the problem.
    b) providing my own data I would have to do if I were in the position to defend Nikon or to say there were no problems or proofing them right. I am not defending Nikon - my "incoherency" is simply, if I'd have a lot of bad experiences with them - like I had with Pentax - I would switch the system because I can't change Nikon, because I know how hard it can be to develop new products flawlessly and because my experience with Nikon is mostly positive. Just at this minute I got a message that one of two lenses I sent in on Monday is repaired and transferred to QC. Maybe I get it back tomorrow.
    c) those "tons of questions" I already went through reading Mansurovs text. Which was mostly accusation without data.

    It's not about "winning" an argument - there are no winners when products are delivered with malfunctions.

    2) Right, we don't know in real life but my experience with some forum members is they take my words and put it in a complete different connotation. I think it's fair to ask if your perception of me is correct? ;) Framing people? Too often I read about wishlists of cameras or lenses, which are nice to fantasize about, I'll do that myself. But then I also think, hey, why not use the stuff you have? Other photogs had less and made great pictures anyway.

    3) sometimes fog looks a lot like smoke, even without fire. If you make a full text search for "issues" in this forum you might get the picture alot of things are going wrong. Things are going wrong, everytime, everywhere - and then people do post them here. How much users are posting like "everything okay, no issues so far"? Not much, they keep on shooting. We sometimes have a very selective perception, especially for bad things.

    Nikon exchanged my D800 because of the left side focus difference. I really wonder if I ever had noticed that - it was only visible with a fast lens and I don't know, how well centerred mine are, I don't know about their field curvature, but what I know is the tolerances are very, very tight and it rarely happens to me to use the left AF. First I didn't believe that and thought I uese both sides equally. So, it was an "issue" but even with it the cam is an amazing piece of high performance at a moderate price, compared to medium format.

    There are no perfect products - I heard even stories about Leica delivering sensors with banding or scratches.
    There are no perfect manufacturers, and I don't believe Nikon will change their information habits.
  • MikeGunterMikeGunter Posts: 543Member
    Hi all,

    Good and bad may be subjective terms, but what Nikon 'delivers' to the consumers in and on the boxes as stated on the warranty is pretty black and white and RGB in 14bit color, and in the case of the D600, a debris-free sensor.

    One would need to live under a rock to know that isn't the way it is. The only people who don't complain about a their D600 having debris on their D600's sensor are ignorant of it.

    It's only apocryphal that the 'debris will go away after extended use', too, AKA, bull$hit.

    Pressuring Nikon now and until they fix it and recall the cameras in the field is the only logical solution.

    My best to all.

    Mike
  • spraynprayspraynpray Posts: 6,491Moderator
    Now THAT is clear.
    Always learning.
  • TaoTeJaredTaoTeJared Posts: 1,306Member
    Any thoughts on Mansurov's #5.
    Be willing to change brands
    suggestion?
    Pair down that collection of gear that you no longer use. Buy and keep only those lenses that you get value from. Many serious amateurs cringe at the idea of switching brands – for a good reason. But if you look behind some of their concerns, part of this fear is that they have to deal with the growing collection of lenses they rarely use. Every now and then, ask yourself “How much value am I getting from this lens, flash, or other piece of equipment?”. If you find that a given piece of gear spends more time on the shelf than on your camera? Sell it. Having a stable of good gear that actually gets used thus serves two purposes: 1) It preserves your hard earned money, and 2) If and when you decide to switch brands because situations change and you are no longer with the products and service of your existing brands, you will have a much easier time.

    Read more: http://photographylife.com/nikon-quality-assurance-and-marketing-gone-wrong#ixzz2OFpHTbyR
    I have often thought working in multiple brands but that is more to achieve a "look" (I.e. Canon with the 50/80mm f/1.2) or even Leica with the 35 1.4, 50mm 1.1) but never to believe issues were enough to change quickly for the newest/greatest. In pragmatical terms, that is a butt load of money. Flashes, lenses, batteries, flash radios, filters (for some). I think he took a bit of a oversimplified statement. Business wright-off are business write-offs, but you still have to have the money to purchase everything. Depending on your focus, ouch! $3k body, at least $6k in lenses, and $1,500 in flashes and triggers. Plus batteries, filters, and probably some other small things that would add up to $500 easily. $11,000 for a pro (MK III/D800) with a trinity lens set and 3 flashes. I'm sure to some that isn't much - but that is a chunk of money to outlay.
    D800, D300, D50(ir converted), FujiX100, Canon G11, Olympus TG2. Nikon lenses - 24mm 2.8, 35mm 1.8, (5 in all)50mm, 60mm, 85mm 1.8, 105vr, 105 f2.5, 180mm 2.8, 70-200vr1, 24-120vr f4. Tokina 12-24mm, 16-28mm, 28-70mm (angenieux design), 300mm f2.8. Sigma 15mm fisheye. Voigtlander R2 (olive) & R2a, Voigt 35mm 2.5, Zeiss 50mm f/2, Leica 90mm f/4. I know I missed something...
  • MsmotoMsmoto Posts: 5,398Moderator
    Keep the language CLEAN. Kids read these threads.
    Msmoto, mod
  • tc88tc88 Posts: 537Member
    TTJ, the only one on the Canon side that remotely interests me will be 5D3. Even then, I would prefer a working D800 over that. Other than 1Dx and 5D3, the rest of Canon's camera offerings are really out of date. You may think there are many Nikon complaints here, but if you visit the forum at Canonrumors, it's a riot there. The grass is not exactly green here considering all the quality issues, but it's not greener on the other side either.
Sign In or Register to comment.