Nikon v Canon

The lenses are the same price, look at the mark II variants of the canon primes. They're a lot more expensive. The nikkor super primes were newere than canon's, which explains the price difference.

Just remember when you leave the 1d3 and go to Nikon, to say the d3 line, you lose reach, because it's full frame.

Scotty - The new Canon version II lenses are not out yet. I have one on the way as soon as they are and the purchase price is still less than the equivalent Nikon lens.

Maybe as a more relevant comparison ... The 70-200mm f/2.8IS lenses
Canon = $1,999.99 (from Canon site)
Nikon = $2,399.95 (from Nikon site)

I am aware of the 1d3 versus d3 differences .... But one is a full frame sensor and the other is a 1.3 crop sensor. And I don't have any plans on going to Nikon.

bhowdy wrote:

The lenses are the same price, look at the mark II variants of the canon primes. They're a lot more expensive. The nikkor super primes were newere than canon's, which explains the price difference.

Just remember when you leave the 1d3 and go to Nikon, to say the d3 line, you lose reach, because it's full frame.

Scotty - The new Canon version II lenses are not out yet. I have one on the way as soon as they are and the purchase price is still less than the equivalent Nikon lens.

Maybe as a more relevant comparison ... The 70-200mm f/2.8IS lenses
Canon = $1,999.99 (from Canon site)
Nikon = $2,399.95 (from Nikon site)

I am aware of the 1d3 versus d3 differences .... But one is a full frame sensor and the other is a 1.3 crop sensor. And I don't have any plans on going to Nikon.

Well on the streets of HK the 70-200 from Canon costs more than the one from Nikon

$16,600 for the Canon, $16,100 for the Nikon.

www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/680103-US...200mm_f_2_8L_IS.html

You're linking verison 1. Version two is MORE than the nikon counterpart.

www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/644741-US...70_200mm_f_2_8G.html

Canon hasn't updated a lot of their lenses in a long time. Now that they're updating, they cost just as much sometimes, more.

Also.

Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II USM price and availability: £7,499.99 / December 2010
Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II USM price and availability: £11,449.99 / December 2010


Read more: www.photoradar.com/news/story/canon-ef-3...leased#ixzz1AyoZqQQ7

My first DSLR was a Nikon, I had researched a few different camera's and the D90 was the winner, since I have added a D700 and love it.

Alex wrote: My first DSLR was a Nikon, I had researched a few different camera's and the D90 was the winner, since I have added a D700 and love it.

The 5d classic was one helluva a camera in it's day. A lot like the d700.

Scotty wrote: www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/680103-US...200mm_f_2_8L_IS.html

You're linking verison 1. Version two is MORE than the nikon counterpart.

www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/644741-US...70_200mm_f_2_8G.html

Canon hasn't updated a lot of their lenses in a long time. Now that they're updating, they cost just as much sometimes, more.

Also.

Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II USM price and availability: £7,499.99 / December 2010
Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II USM price and availability: £11,449.99 / December 2010


Read more: www.photoradar.com/news/story/canon-ef-3...leased#ixzz1AyoZqQQ7

With Canon the POUND price is usually the same as the USD price too BTW. So it's probably gonna be $7,500USD and $11,500USD.

The Nikon versions cost: $5,799.00 for the 300mm version II.

Stealthy Ninja wrote:

Scotty wrote: www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/680103-US...200mm_f_2_8L_IS.html

You're linking verison 1. Version two is MORE than the nikon counterpart.

www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/644741-US...70_200mm_f_2_8G.html

Canon hasn't updated a lot of their lenses in a long time. Now that they're updating, they cost just as much sometimes, more.

Also.

Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II USM price and availability: £7,499.99 / December 2010
Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II USM price and availability: £11,449.99 / December 2010


Read more: www.photoradar.com/news/story/canon-ef-3...leased#ixzz1AyoZqQQ7

With Canon the POUND price is usually the same as the USD price too BTW. So it's probably gonna be $7,500USD and $11,500USD.

The Nikon versions cost: $5,799.00 for the 300mm version II.

'

Agreed, but we're all splitting hairs. Both will break my bank account and produce phenomal shots

Scotty wrote:

Stealthy Ninja wrote:

Scotty wrote: www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/680103-US...200mm_f_2_8L_IS.html

You're linking verison 1. Version two is MORE than the nikon counterpart.

www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/644741-US...70_200mm_f_2_8G.html

Canon hasn't updated a lot of their lenses in a long time. Now that they're updating, they cost just as much sometimes, more.

Also.

Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II USM price and availability: £7,499.99 / December 2010
Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II USM price and availability: £11,449.99 / December 2010


Read more: www.photoradar.com/news/story/canon-ef-3...leased#ixzz1AyoZqQQ7

With Canon the POUND price is usually the same as the USD price too BTW. So it's probably gonna be $7,500USD and $11,500USD.

The Nikon versions cost: $5,799.00 for the 300mm version II.

'

Agreed, but we're all splitting hairs. Both will break my bank account and produce phenomal shots

Very true, the difference aren't enough to say you should use either system because of them. If you're happy with Canon/Nikon that's cool. If you're seriously thinking of buying such expensive lenses, you've probably made your own mind up about which brand is best already, not waiting to switch or which one you should start with.

For me it was the Nikon 3100 or the Canon T2I and I went with T2I because it offered more of what I was looking at such as bracketing.

wagaboo wrote: For me it was the Nikon 3100 or the Canon T2I and I went with T2I because it offered more of what I was looking at such as bracketing.

Yeh the D3100 isn't too great. Nikon start getting better around the D7000 and up.

When I bought my first DSLR I was totally open-minded between the two brands. I went to a reputable pro store and asked their advice, which was that they were equally as good as each other and that it would just come down to brand preference, of which I had none at the time. In the end I went Nikon because they had them in stock at the time, but not the equivalent Canon. That camera re-ignited my then dormant passion for photography with the result that I now have several Nikon bodies, the oldest of which is an F2, and numerous lenses, mostly built in the twentieth century. Now that I am committed to the Nikon system I could not afford to change to Canon. The one big advantage of the Nikon system is the almost universal interchangeability of lenses going back for over forty years. Canon just can't match that, because they changed their lens mount mid-stream. I am an amateur with limited financial resources and I just can't afford the digital merry-go-round of constantly updating bodies and lenses.

I went Canon because I was on a budget and they had a camera on clearance...easy as that. My dad shoots Nikon and if I hadn't wanted to save some money up front I probably would have gotten some gear trickle down. Now I'm invested and can't complain. I know my camera's quirks and where all the buttons are. I would happily shoot Nikon though.

Had a Minolta 35mm back in the 60's and always wanted a Nikon because it was THE brand back in the day. When I got back into photography about 3 years ago, I of course bought Nikon because of always wishing I could afford a Nikon. I love my camera (Nikon D90).

You know what I hate, people who have either brand (Nikon or Canon) and they try to convince others to buy/switch to the brand they have.

A couple weeks ago, I became "friends" on facebook with a guy who lives in my area. He has a Canon. He tried his hardest to get me to switch. He even went as far to tell me there are adaptors that I can buy to use my lenses on the Canon. So I wouldn't have to buy all new lenses.

I've always had a soft spot for Canon so I stuck with it. From point and shoots to my first DSLR a few years ago.