Also if you're doing lots of sports and may have to invest in your own super-telephotos you may want to switch when you begin buying them as I believe each of the Canons is about 1k USD cheaper than the Nikons. That adds up over time. Otherwise, I'll agree with the rest here, switch only if there is a very sound reason, but if you need to do it, then do it.
Josh... I checked a couple lenses between canon and nikon and found that nikons were in the range of 10% more expensive... not $1k usd when similar lenses are compared (like 300 2.8 IS vs. 300 2.8VR) More significantly (I think) is that Nikon hasn't upgraded all their super-teles with VR yet. So I couldn't do many direct comparisons. (But even without VR, Nikons were more expensive than the Canon counterparts with IS). I wanted to compare the canon 200 1.8 with the Nikon 200 2.0, but I couldn't find that canon lens.
I'm convinced that the suits at Canon marketing think that the more big white lenses that show up on the sidelines at the super bowl, the more P&S cameras they will sell that year. Canon shooters, I think, get to reap the benefits of that marketing strategy.
This would only make a differenct to me if I shot pro-football 20 days a year. To me, its all about versatility. Super-teles are pretty esoteric... and in my bag, they would almost never get used. So its not (for me) a factor in choosing a camera brand.
Ron
White Balance so easy, even our 5 year old can do it.- Melissa Strickland
Did any of you get suckered into using Microsoft's Millenium Edition OS? Biggest POS around...I am still pissed off at Mr. Gates for letting that go out the door.
I was a lifelong Nikon shooter but only pro the last 6+ years. I went from the D1 to the D2H. The D2H outa the box was CRAP. Even though it is not really about MP I need the minimum to print the standard 8 X 10. Oh yea, the camera felt good...but, the sensor was a POS. I guess Nikon finally surrendered and has outsourced it's CCD's but they do not move fast enough for the market. But, I loved their glass and especially the 14mm 2.8.
Wide angles glass suck for Canon IMHO.
So, when I am asked for advice, it will always be Canon because Nikon is an engineering company oblivious to the pro needs: their gross profit is the consumer/prosumer components. Canon is a marketing company. They understand the NASCAR mindset if you win on Sunday, they sell on Monday.
Again, IMHO Nikon reeks of the same arrogance that IBM suffered from in the early 90's and almost went belly up.
This evolving digital realm will kill of the majority of players and suspect that FOVEON might eventually get a bigger piece of the pie.
White Balance so easy, even our 5 year old can do it.- Melissa Strickland
I have to say that 90% of the sports photographers I know shoot on Canon cameras. Canon really took the market in the 90's with their IS lenses that, at the time, Nikon couldn't run with. They're also marginally cheaper, which adds up when you're buying a 70-200, 300 2.8, and a 400 2.8 (most of the serious sports shooters would own each of those lenses). Canon also has a big edge in high ISO performance, which is key if you spend your days shooting under stadium lighting. I don't know if there's a huge difference in auto focus anymore.
I think Nikon has really nice skin tones, and very good flash performance. Both key issues for shooting weddings and portraits, which is 90% what I do.
So there you go...
BTW - what's mirrow lock up? I don't think I've ever used it.
I would consider changing brands if my Nikon lenses would not work with the newer Nikon bodies. Otherwise, I would save my money. Canon seems to be ahead of Nikon's technology (because they are a bigger company which can afford the investment), but that might change. Who knows what Sony and panasonic will do in the future? Keep your Nikons. Oh, Nikon lenses work with Fuji cameras, and Fujis are not slackers.
__________________ Robert Hall
White Balance so easy, even our 5 year old can do it.- Melissa Strickland
Linear Mode
