I don't think I will have trouble selling my rig,
Nikon D-100: firmware upgraded and calibrated.
Nikkor 300mm f/2.8 Manual: Modified for TLL metering
Nikkor 80-200 f/2.8 push-pull type, Nikkor 24-85 f/2.8
Micro-nikkor 60mm, Sigma 17-35 f/2.8
Nikkor TC17Ell converter: modified to provide TLL metering w/300mm
4 x EN-EL3 batteries, MB-D100 base, Nikon Capture Editor v.3.0, 7 x 256mb CF cards
AC Adaptor EH-5
But I am uncertain as to why the disparity exists with landscape/wildlife photographers & sports phtogrpahers between Nikon and Canon, is it because the image quality is so much better? the lenses are cheaper? Canons digital technology is better? I don't get it. I mean looking at the Olympics there were not too many Nikons present, nor on the more prominant web sites is there a strong Nikon presence, it seems only Moose Petersen is very visably nikon.
One thing that clearly concerns me about Canon is in the conversion of raw images in PSCS. At least Nikon got that part right.
Drew you don't say what you jumped to? Are you glad you did?
I am afraid that I may be on the digital equivalent of a betamax ride, the Sony platform was far and away better but doomed.
Full Version: nikon user in a quandry jump or go deeper
I still don't really understand the reason for "bitter dissapointment", but I agree the best idea is to wait for Photokina, as there may be more surprises... ???
At the high end, Nikon are "back in the game", as Michael put it, with the D2x. I guess they don't at the moment have a Canon 20D equivalent, but then what about looking at the new Fuji S3 in the Nikon F-mount? I'd be surpised if the new S3 was not a match for the 20D.
What I am saying is that I don't see a pressing reason to change systems at the moment.
Quentin
At the high end, Nikon are "back in the game", as Michael put it, with the D2x. I guess they don't at the moment have a Canon 20D equivalent, but then what about looking at the new Fuji S3 in the Nikon F-mount? I'd be surpised if the new S3 was not a match for the 20D.
What I am saying is that I don't see a pressing reason to change systems at the moment.
Quentin
Nikon was always at the top of the pile regarding "camera" stuff back in the film days. Nikon took a wrong turn with their own sensor but are now back with Sony. Sony and Canon are both state of the art so I expect Nikon to be back in the game for sure. That said, I don't know if I can wait another 6 months for the D2x. (& even longer for a D100 replacement)
Quentin
Not on the basis of one camera. On the basis of apparent different approaches in handling noise reduction and other features. Common opinion is that Nikon shots look more natural but need more work PP. Canon shots are "plastic looking" but yield a more usable shot right out of the camera. As I have seen people say in forums, "Nikon lets the photographer control the amount of sharpening and noise reduction, etc. in post processing. I'd rather not have the camera make those decisions for me."
I agree with the above statement IF you have time to do PP. I don't. I will be doing event shooting with printing on site. No time for PP using Noise Ninja or other tools. We shoot JPEG not RAW and the shots have to be almost perfect coming out of the camera. From what I have seen, the 20D can do this. Now I have to verify this for myself.
The D2H is also a possible alternative but for three items.
1) The noise. I know that proper exposure and white balance will solve this issue, but I don't always have the luxury of being able to achieve this. I need a more forgiving camera.
2) 4MP. Yeah I know the difference is not great and the pixels on the D2H are better, but we do a lot of cropping, and I'm not confident that the D2H has enough crop room.
3) The price. The D2H is twice the cost of the 20D.
As I said, my mind is not made up. I may abandon the entire idea once I get my hands on a 20D. I like the feel of the Nikon equipment and lenses. I just don't think their philosophy and my method of shooting are in line with each other.
I have also looked at the Fuji, but based on what I have seen, it will not have a fast enough reaction time. Excellent studio and wedding camera, but I don't think it would qualify as a sports camera. I'm still checking into it though. One guy that works with us occasionally has a Fuji S2. It does not react as quick as the D100. He primarilty does weddings and loves the camera for that type of work.
Thanks for the comments. If I pull the trigger I want it to be with eyes wide open.
Not on the basis of one camera. On the basis of apparent different approaches in handling noise reduction and other features. Common opinion is that Nikon shots look more natural but need more work PP. Canon shots are "plastic looking" but yield a more usable shot right out of the camera. As I have seen people say in forums, "Nikon lets the photographer control the amount of sharpening and noise reduction, etc. in post processing. I'd rather not have the camera make those decisions for me."
I agree with the above statement IF you have time to do PP. I don't. I will be doing event shooting with printing on site. No time for PP using Noise Ninja or other tools. We shoot JPEG not RAW and the shots have to be almost perfect coming out of the camera. From what I have seen, the 20D can do this. Now I have to verify this for myself.
The D2H is also a possible alternative but for three items.
1) The noise. I know that proper exposure and white balance will solve this issue, but I don't always have the luxury of being able to achieve this. I need a more forgiving camera.
2) 4MP. Yeah I know the difference is not great and the pixels on the D2H are better, but we do a lot of cropping, and I'm not confident that the D2H has enough crop room.
3) The price. The D2H is twice the cost of the 20D.
As I said, my mind is not made up. I may abandon the entire idea once I get my hands on a 20D. I like the feel of the Nikon equipment and lenses. I just don't think their philosophy and my method of shooting are in line with each other.
I have also looked at the Fuji, but based on what I have seen, it will not have a fast enough reaction time. Excellent studio and wedding camera, but I don't think it would qualify as a sports camera. I'm still checking into it though. One guy that works with us occasionally has a Fuji S2. It does not react as quick as the D100. He primarilty does weddings and loves the camera for that type of work.
Thanks for the comments. If I pull the trigger I want it to be with eyes wide open.
I was an early adopter of the D-100 2/12 years ago. I was bitterly disappointed when I saw Nikons photokina annoucements did not include a replacement for the D-100. The question is this. Living where I do and given the costs of equipment such as a full D-100 rig (camera, Mb-100, 5 lenses, extras) I can sell it today for what I paid for it and replace it with the D-20 and a new set of lenses? Or should I bite the bitter pill and buy a nikon 2Dx? Another issue that concerns me is that Nikon lets us use just about any lens they ever made and Canon does not. So if there are any D-100 users who have dumped and jumped to Canon I would love to hear from you. :cool:
I would not wish to disagree with anthing Quentin has written. However, almost exactly a year ago I did exactly what you are contemplating. I changed from a Fuji S2 Pro based outfit with F5, F4S, F100, 17-35AFS, 80-200AFS. 28 shift, 85mm F1.4, SB28 etc. It all went on ebay and I got very good money for it all. The only thing that came back to bite me on the backside was that the 17-35 AFS (which was otherwise mint) needed a new silentwave motor. Even with a discount of 25%, this was very expensive. Changing may not be as difficult as you think, although obviously, it will depend on the saleability of what you have. Not long before my change, I also sold off some AIS Nikkors which also went easily and for good money.
I changed to Canon. A 1Ds and a 10D as backup (I have just sold the 10D and am expecting the 20D today). I liked the S2 Pro, but the 1Ds is unquestionably a better camera and produces better images (although the S2 Pro was definitely no slouch). So no regrets and I will probably replace the 1Ds with the mark II 1Ds as and when, although I am in no hurry. As for lenses, the only slight drawback of Canon vs Nikon, is that Canon do not make a pro ultra-wide zoom as good as the 17-35 AFS Nikkor. The 24-70 and 70-200 L zooms are very good indeed. I have the 17-40 F4L which is generally fine. However, if I need wider or panoramic with great image quality, I use PTAssembler and its plug-ins to stitch. The Canon 300 f2.8 and the 500mm F4 L lenses get very good write-ups.
If you were buying from scratch, i think you would have to conclude that the 1d Mk II is preferrable to the D2H and the 1Ds is preferrable (probably still) to the D2X.
Sorry, what problem is there (that I am unaware of) in relation to PSCS and Canon RAW? Personally, I tend to use Phase One Capture, but PSCS seems capable on the odd occasion.
I do not regard Nikon as Sony Betamax. That is just way too extreme.
If you were buying from scratch, i think you would have to conclude that the 1d Mk II is preferrable to the D2H and the 1Ds is preferrable (probably still) to the D2X.
Sorry, what problem is there (that I am unaware of) in relation to PSCS and Canon RAW? Personally, I tend to use Phase One Capture, but PSCS seems capable on the odd occasion.
I do not regard Nikon as Sony Betamax. That is just way too extreme.
Well, if the D2X at lower ISOs has comparable image quality to the 11MPs of the 1Ds, what's there to worry about? At 20x24 inch prints 11+MPs gives you prints that rival those from drum scanned 6x7. Is that not good enough for anyone? It's been good enough for all those 1Ds owners for the past two years.
Frankly, 11 to 16 MPs easily encroaches on medium format territory. Anyone shooting with 35mm or 6MP digital will easily see (and be satisfied with) any camera in that MP range. The D2X is good news for Nikon owners.
Frankly, 11 to 16 MPs easily encroaches on medium format territory. Anyone shooting with 35mm or 6MP digital will easily see (and be satisfied with) any camera in that MP range. The D2X is good news for Nikon owners.
Thanks for the replies, bitter dissapointment.. I am a serious amateur who works hard for his money and is willing to spend a pile but laying out 4 to 5 grand on the D2X and 3500 on the 2nd hand f4 500mm nikkor I wanted seems like a stretch. Canon seems to provide an entry level solution and intermediate steps to the top of its pile. Nikon seems to have abandoned the middle. Perhaps the analysts have conclued that there is insufficent demand in the middle to justify the expense of competing. I agree the 2DX looks like a smokin box but it is my hobby not my profession....
I was hoping that there would be a 8 to 10 megapixel replacement for the D-100 with a few extras to solve issues that exist with the camera offered around Christmas for a couple of g's.
I was hoping that there would be a 8 to 10 megapixel replacement for the D-100 with a few extras to solve issues that exist with the camera offered around Christmas for a couple of g's.
I am one of those who switched. I had been a dedicated Nikon owner for almost 15 years. My last camera was a F90X film camera and I sold it and all my Nikon lenses a year ago and bought a Pentax 67 system because I like what I get from scanning and printing medium format. So my digital foray was by way of 6X7 film. Because I make prints at A3 and Super A3 size, I had been waiting for Nikon to build an 8 MP or better DSLR camera at a reasonable pysical size, weight and price point. But instead, Canon built the 20D first. The D70 is a fine camera without doubt, but I need the extra pixels 8MP gives, and the burst rate and ruggedness of the Canon are excellent. I am worried about Nikon as a company too. It seems every time they come out with a competitive model, it is quickly superceded by Canon who announce a model with superior features soon after. Look at the D70 and 20D or the D2X and IdsMkII. Also, the company itself is not terribly profitable in their camera line and Mitsubishi- who own Nikon- are not in great financial shape either. The upshot is, in a few years, the number of camera manufacturers could be much reduced. It takes a lot of fortitude to remain faithful to Nikon and I decided it was a good time to switch over. Admittedly I did not have a huge investment in lenses remaining like some of you, mostly it was emotional but having had the 20D in my hands now for a week, I'm well over that now too.
Hi there,
I keep thinking that the move from 6Mp to 8MP doesn't make sense.
Considering a print DPI of 240, which is probably optimal for a printer like the Epson 2200, here is what you will gain in terms of print size by moving from a 6MP to an 8PM camera:
6 MP: 211 * 318 mm
8PM: 248 * 360 mm
Is it really worth speding several thousand dollars?
Best regards,
Bernard
I keep thinking that the move from 6Mp to 8MP doesn't make sense.
Considering a print DPI of 240, which is probably optimal for a printer like the Epson 2200, here is what you will gain in terms of print size by moving from a 6MP to an 8PM camera:
6 MP: 211 * 318 mm
8PM: 248 * 360 mm
Is it really worth speding several thousand dollars?
Best regards,
Bernard
QUOTE (jeffok @ Sep. 26 2004,02:53)
Also, the company itself is not terribly profitable in their camera line and Mitsubishi- who own Nikon- are not in great financial shape either. The upshot is, in a few years, the number of camera manufacturers could be much reduced.
This sounds like the sort of pessimism about every camera maker except Canon that one can read constantly at DPReview.
Nikon is solidly one of the top two amongst SLR makers and now DSLR makers. Olympus claims happily to be number three in DSLR's, and you can imagine how big the gap is between them and the big two.
So I doubt that Nikon will disappear unless the market become a complete Canon monopoly. In fourty years of 35mm film SLRs, nothing like that happened, and the move to digital probably increases total camera sale revenues: more expensive cameras that get replaced more often. So I expect a good number of camera makers to survive and do well, including Nikon.
QUOTE (pfr @ Oct. 11 2004,06:16)
The D2H is also a possible alternative but for three items.
1) The noise. I know that proper exposure and white balance will solve this issue, but I don't always have the luxury of being able to achieve this. I need a more forgiving camera.
2) 4MP. Yeah I know the difference is not great and the pixels on the D2H are better, but we do a lot of cropping, and I'm not confident that the D2H has enough crop room.
3) The price. The D2H is twice the cost of the 20D.
1) The noise. I know that proper exposure and white balance will solve this issue, but I don't always have the luxury of being able to achieve this. I need a more forgiving camera.
2) 4MP. Yeah I know the difference is not great and the pixels on the D2H are better, but we do a lot of cropping, and I'm not confident that the D2H has enough crop room.
3) The price. The D2H is twice the cost of the 20D.
Hi there,
If I were you, I would try to test both the 20D and the D2H in actual shooting situations.
The AF of the D2H appears to be vastly superior when shooting low light and the sharper resulting pictures might compensate the lack of resolution (the same can seemingly be said when comparing the D2H with the 1DMKII by the way).
In terms of price, the D2H is actually only 60% more expensive here in Tokyo (187.000 Yen against 290.000 Yen).
Besides, you might also want to consider the D70 as a short term alternative, its AF seems to be much better than that of the D100 based on some recent CDI rigorous testing. It was not as good as the 20D, but reasonnably close. Besides, the cost of trading your D100 against a new D70 would be very low. The lack of vertical grip and connectors might be a problem for you though.
Best regards,
Bernard
Were you happy with your D100 until the 20D appeared? If so, then it is only a matter of time (soon) before Nikon replace it with a direct competitor for the 20D. If you change over to Canon and Nikon bring out a 10MP replacement (as you suggest) for the D100 just after, have you asked yourself if you will not be 'bitterly dissapointed' again? If the Fuji S3 Pro gets rave reviews, is that not also a potential source of 'bitter dissapointment' if you have changed over to Canon? You have said that you cannot afford full-frame and Nikon are not going to leave other markets non-competitive for long.
pfr
Not another one! Switch to Canon? On the basis on one camera, the 20D? You must be mad
The pace of change is too fast to change systems on the basis of one new camera model. Say you move to Canon, then Nikon release a D200 that would have met or exceded your needs. You'd have to consider switching back again. Crazy!
Also as I said earlier in this thread, in the F-mount there are other options now and in the future. Look at the Fuji S3, for example. On the basis of what the 2-year old S2 can do, I'd probably prefer to have the S3 than the Canon 20D. I actually use an S2 and a Kodak 14nx.
I think if you jump ship now you may end up regretting it very quickly.
Quentin
Not another one! Switch to Canon? On the basis on one camera, the 20D? You must be mad
The pace of change is too fast to change systems on the basis of one new camera model. Say you move to Canon, then Nikon release a D200 that would have met or exceded your needs. You'd have to consider switching back again. Crazy!
Also as I said earlier in this thread, in the F-mount there are other options now and in the future. Look at the Fuji S3, for example. On the basis of what the 2-year old S2 can do, I'd probably prefer to have the S3 than the Canon 20D. I actually use an S2 and a Kodak 14nx.
I think if you jump ship now you may end up regretting it very quickly.
Quentin
It would be an odd time to jump ship. The D100 remains a competitive camera, and the D70 is arguably the best entry level DSLR available. Such is the speed of change with digital at the moment, who knows wht might be released in a year or so?
Also, if you are unhappy for a specific reason with the D100, you have the option of looking at other F-mount alternatives such as the Fuji S3 or Kodah SLR/n, as well as the D2x.
Quentin
Also, if you are unhappy for a specific reason with the D100, you have the option of looking at other F-mount alternatives such as the Fuji S3 or Kodah SLR/n, as well as the D2x.
Quentin
I think Drew is correct the betamax comparison was a bit extreme. perhaps a Apple/Windows comparison would be better. It seems that there is a problem in reading .raw files from canons D-10 and the D-20 in PSCS. I really am in a quandry, start over, stay the course, start over, stay the course. I think I am going to see what comes out of photokina and then decide.
QUOTE (namibiajohnston @ Sep. 20 2004,12:55)
I was an early adopter of the D-100 2/12 years ago. I was bitterly disappointed when I saw Nikons photokina annoucements did not include a replacement for the D-100.
Hi there,
My personnal guess is that the extra 2 Mpixel of the 20D would not provide very significant improvements over the D100 in terms of how large you will be able to print.
You would spend a lot of money for little significant gains.
Best regards,
Bernard
QUOTE (jeffok @ Sep. 26 2004,02:53)
I am worried about Nikon as a company too. It seems every time they come out with a competitive model, it is quickly superceded by Canon who announce a model with superior features soon after. Look at the D70 and 20D or the D2X and IdsMkII. Also, the company itself is not terribly profitable in their camera line and Mitsubishi- who own Nikon- are not in great financial shape either. The upshot is, in a few years, the number of camera manufacturers could be much reduced.
I am not sure where you are getting these figures.
What I hear is that Nikon as a whole is not doing that great, but that the camera devision is profitable. The D70 is an absolute hit in all the markets, and this is where money is to be made, not that much with D2X/1DsMKII level cameras.
The stepper division, steppers being very expensive devices used to make chips, is not doing well at all, which negatively influences the results of the company.
As far as Mistsubishi Group is concerned, it is true that MMC (cars) and Mitsubishi Chemicals are not doing very good, but there are other Mitsubishi group companies, that are flourishing, starting with the Tokyo Mitsubishi Banking Corportation which is the only Japanese financial group doing OK.
I just joined this forum and noticed this thread right off.
I am currently a D100 shooter who just placed an order for the D20 in order to switch from Nikon to Canon. My mind is not completely made up and I can simply refuse the camera when it comes in.
I stepped up to the D100 just under a year ago. My main use is low light indoor sports. Figure Skating, Hockey and Dance are the top three. My recent frustration with the D100 is the low number of sharp in focus shots I am ableto get in arenas. The camera just does not seem to be able to keep up with the auto focus tracking, and has a hard time locking on a moving target. My main lens in the 70-200 2.8 VR which is one of the best you can get. The shots I get are good, but not great! I want to get into the great category a high percentage of the time.
I have decided that I need a better auto focus system than what is in the D100. This means I either upgrade to the D2H or D2X, or switch to Canon. While I drool over the D2H, I do not believe it will deliver good enough high ISO shots out of the camera to allow for on site event sale prints. I don't have time to clean up images with Noise Ninja or NeatImage. I can't afford to drop $7K Canadian on a D2X. That leaves me with the option of selling my limited Nikon gear and getting a 20D. I can actually switch systems for less that what it would cost to buy a D2H.
So my reasons for switching would not be to get an extra 2MB. It would be for better high ISO performance out of the camera, hopefully a better autofocus system, and, that neat WB adjustment feature in JPEG that looks to be the answer to my arena lighting problem. In the review Michael said he did not understand who the WB adjustment would be for. Its for ME!
The one thing I am worried about losing from the D100 is the intermediate ISO settings. 250, 320, 600, 1000, 1250 etc. In many arenas we shoot 1000 or 1250 and get fairly good results. With the 20D I would have to jump to ISO 1600 if 800 does not work. I'll have to do some tests when the camera comes in.
Just my 2 cents.
PS. The decision to switch is not completely made yet. I have a lot of soul searching to do. And research, and practise, and learning ....
My galleries
http://iceshots.smugmug.com/
Pat
I am currently a D100 shooter who just placed an order for the D20 in order to switch from Nikon to Canon. My mind is not completely made up and I can simply refuse the camera when it comes in.
I stepped up to the D100 just under a year ago. My main use is low light indoor sports. Figure Skating, Hockey and Dance are the top three. My recent frustration with the D100 is the low number of sharp in focus shots I am ableto get in arenas. The camera just does not seem to be able to keep up with the auto focus tracking, and has a hard time locking on a moving target. My main lens in the 70-200 2.8 VR which is one of the best you can get. The shots I get are good, but not great! I want to get into the great category a high percentage of the time.
I have decided that I need a better auto focus system than what is in the D100. This means I either upgrade to the D2H or D2X, or switch to Canon. While I drool over the D2H, I do not believe it will deliver good enough high ISO shots out of the camera to allow for on site event sale prints. I don't have time to clean up images with Noise Ninja or NeatImage. I can't afford to drop $7K Canadian on a D2X. That leaves me with the option of selling my limited Nikon gear and getting a 20D. I can actually switch systems for less that what it would cost to buy a D2H.
So my reasons for switching would not be to get an extra 2MB. It would be for better high ISO performance out of the camera, hopefully a better autofocus system, and, that neat WB adjustment feature in JPEG that looks to be the answer to my arena lighting problem. In the review Michael said he did not understand who the WB adjustment would be for. Its for ME!
The one thing I am worried about losing from the D100 is the intermediate ISO settings. 250, 320, 600, 1000, 1250 etc. In many arenas we shoot 1000 or 1250 and get fairly good results. With the 20D I would have to jump to ISO 1600 if 800 does not work. I'll have to do some tests when the camera comes in.
Just my 2 cents.
PS. The decision to switch is not completely made yet. I have a lot of soul searching to do. And research, and practise, and learning ....
My galleries
http://iceshots.smugmug.com/
Pat
QUOTE (drew @ Sep. 20 2004,08:55)
Canon do not make a pro ultra-wide zoom as good as the 17-35 AFS Nikkor.
Canon makes the 16-35mm f/2.8L and the 17-40 f/4L in that range. I own the former and it takes lovely pictures.
There is a review of the lens here.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.