Bonus Question - A reprint from the past, with updates!
The following essay is a reprint
from a report I published on this website several years ago, when we first made
the switch from Nikon to Canon. However, over the years we would
receive numerous requests
for this essay, and we'd send that out. Reading some other website blogs I also discovered that many people were looking for
this information, and as a service to them, I decided to repost that essay.
Before anyone reads on, please let me make it quite clear that the brand doesn't make the photographer, and good shooters will do good work with any system. Zillions of years ago I started with Canon, because the old Canon FT system offered behind-the-lens metering at a far more affordable price than the Nikon F system, which required an expensive additional pentaprism head to achieve the same goal. I found, over the years, that Canon almost always offered comparable equipment at lower prices than Nikon, and I was very happy building my career with Canon gear. However, when Canon switched to the EOS system they pretty-much abandoned the FD users, and I was unhappy with that move because of some problems with the early EOS technology. When Mary purchased Nikon gear, and we became a team, it made sense for us to have the same system, and I switched to Nikon.
As the years passed, however,
Canon's AF EOS system improved incredibly, and I found myself recommending
Canon to our students when they expressed an interest in switching from the
lesser known brands they may have been using, systems like Minolta or
Here then, is that essay, with changes now added to reflect the evolution of my thinking:
Hi. Thanks for your inquiry about why we switched from Nikon to Canon.
There were several compelling reasons for our witching from Nikon to Canon.
These reasons may also be compelling to you, as well, but before you panic and
consider making the switch for yourself, let me stress that both systems are
excellent.
In brief, the reasons we switched include:
Cutting edge technology
Reliable aperture mechanism
Fast autofocus
Canon's tripod compatible IS lenses - the most exciting development in lenses
ever!
Compatibility of all accessories (tubes, extenders, etc)
The EOS 1N RS - for high speed flash work, for Shutterbeam
work, etc. nothing beats it! I suspect that the RS
will not be supported by Canon in the future, if indeed it is even supported
now. Unfortunately Canon has no plans to make a similar digital model, when one
of the RS's disadvantages - losing 2/3rds of an f-stop due to the pellicle
mirror - can easily be addressed by raising the ISO in a digital camera.
Canon Professional Service's professionalism
Canon's digital video lens compatibility
Nikon's faulty aperture and repair record
Our latest field experiences with Canon and Nikon - which one had the most
equipment failure?
Auctions like e-bay to sell off old gear.
Rationalizing that it's easier to walk away, accept your loses, and start over,
than to continue in error.
A
little history. I started my photography career shooting with Canon, and
I switched to Nikon when Mary and I got together, since I had earlier convinced
her to go Nikon! At that time, I was shooting with the now obsolete Canon FD
system, but Canon had introduced, and was heavily promoting, the new EOS
system. The EOS system was still in its infancy, and, annoyingly, they were
basically coming out with a upgraded camera body every
few months. None of those bodies were especially good, the autofocus
was slow, and, perhaps most telling, a photographer could go broke upgrading to
the latest model each time. Once the EOS 1N and 1N RS came out, things
stabilized, and the EOS system came into its own.
Even though I was still shooting Nikon, over the last several years I became an
advocate of the EOS system, recommending this system to our photo course
participants. Feedback I received from Canon shooters, my own 'take' on the
state of the technology, and other reasons convinced me that the Canon system
was the superior system. Yet Mary and I shot Nikon, and people were amused by
this contradiction. Wrongly, I thought I was trapped into the Nikon system for
financial reasons, and that it would be cost prohibitive for Mary and I to
switch. For people with a smaller investment, or for those who were Minolta or Pentax shooters and thinking of switching, I explained that
Canon's EOS offered far more than did Nikon. For reasons I'll soon explain.
Last year, after a final straw broke my camera's back, and with the
availability of ebay for selling my old gear, we
decided it was time to practice what we were preaching, and we too made the
switch.
Our reasons for advocating EOS are multiple. Technology-wise, I think EOS has been,
and will continue to be, ahead of the game. Canon is an enormous company, and
has the working capital to invest and experiment, and to come up with neat, new
gadgets. Nikon is a much smaller company and, for the most part, plays
catch-up. However, I did love the NIKON F5, and I wouldn't be surprised if true
side-by-side tests may show that the predictive autofocus
on the F5 is more accurate than any offered by EOS. That's a great thing, but
not enough to keep me from switching. I really appreciate the F5's predictive
AF, which keeps a subject in focus even when something comes between the target
subject and the camera. I wish EOS offered something similar, but although the
EOS will jump focus to the 'blocking' object, the AF is so fast that it almost
immediately snaps back to the target subject once it is back in the clear. The
AF is fast - I'd suspect it is indeed the fastest AF system available, but that
wasn't my only reason for switching.
As I contemplated really making the switch, it became a bit easier because I
already had a mini-EOS system. We own three EOS 1N RSs,
which I use for high-speed flash and shutterbeam
work. The RS has the FASTEST RESPONSE TIME, the shortest lag time, of any 35mm
camera. When a camera tripper, like a Shutterbeam or PhotoTrap is triggered, the RS responds in 6ms, or about
1/180th sec. That's fast enough that a flying bird will only travel an inch or
two before the camera fires, so if a composition is designed so that there's a
bird's body length's space, you'll catch it in the frame. Nikon's lag time is
somewhere between 1/10th and 1/30th of a second, which translates into quite a
distance before the shutter fires. To go along with our RSs
we had a 35-350mm zoom, a 70-200 2.8 zoom, and 12, 25mm extension tubes and
1.4X and 2X tele-converters. I had a core system
already!
We also shoot with a Canon XL-1 dv video camera, and
it takes the Canon EOS lenses. When we traveled, I carried my Nikon system,
plus the XL and at least 1 EOS lens for higher magnification. The smaller format
of the dv system means that a lens normally used for
35mm photography now has a 7.2X greater magnification. A 70-200, with a 1.4X tele-converter, becomes a 280mm, almost a 6X lens for 35mm
work, but becomes a 2,016mm lens (actually the equivalent) when mounted on the dv camera! Since we made the switch I've actually used my
400mm f2.8 lens, coupled with a 2X tele-converter, on
the dv camera. That's the equivalent of a 5,760mm
lens, or about 113X! Granted, finding a subject at that magnification is difficult,
and image stability can be an issue, but … when you really need
magnification, you have it. I've filmed an African martial eagle eating a young
monitor lizard at 100 yards, and the entire bird did not fit within the frame.
In Yellowstone, I filmed the wolves at a half mile or more - the wolves were
small, but a moving subject carries interest, and the video was effective.
It made sense for us to consider having a larger variety of EOS lenses to use
with the video camera, as we did with our 35mm camera. I envisioned using a
macro lens, a super telephoto, etc. So, we had another reason, but in truth, it
wasn't the main reason we seriously considered switching.
But that probably would not have been enough, NOR would those reasons be of any
real interest to you or anyone else. Here's our other reasons, and why these
might be of interest to you. Our reasons for switching were based upon the pro
models offered by both systems (Nikon F5 and N90, and now the F100, and Canon's
1N RS and EOS 3 - this was written before the EOS 1v was introduced, and I'm
not sold on the 1v). We were not concerned about other models, like Nikon's
6006 or EOS's 10s or Elan,
so our evaluation was based solely upon cameras we'd own. In other words, we're
not trying to sell you on a basic camera line, but we have great thoughts about
the EOS 3.
So here are our compelling reasons:
1. The EOS lens mount and electronic aperture. Canon lost me as an FD mount
user (that's when I switched to Nikon) when they introduced the EOS system.
However, time has proven them right and me wrong, and I'm back with Canon. Flat
out, the electronic aperture is more reliable than Nikon's mechanical aperture,
where the lens closes down via a lever on the camera body that activates a
lever in the lens that closes the aperture. With Nikon, when you fire, or when
you use the depth of field preview button (if that Nikon camera has one!), the
camera body lever pushes the lens aperture lever and the aperture closes.
Unless you use the depth of field preview button you won't see this happen, so
WHETHER OR NOT the pin is working is a matter of faith.
Sometimes it does not! Over the years I've lost parts of several shoots when
these levers did not couple correctly. According to the camera, with full
aperture metering, everything looked OK and seemed to be OK, but, in fact, the
aperture wasn't closing down. Consequently, if I wasn't shooting wide-open, I
was overexposed by whatever f-stop number I was down from the maximum aperture!
So, for example, if I were shooting at f8 and I was
using a F2.8 lens, I'd be overexposed by three stops!
Last March I was filming eagles in Alaska in a perhaps once-in-a-lifetime
opportunity. Luckily, I periodically check my aperture and my depth of field
preview button, and as I did so three days into the trip I discovered that my
300mm F2.8 lens was not closing down! When I'd mount the lens on the camera for
the first time, everything seemed to work, and checking the DofF
button confirmed this. However, if I checked it again, I found it did not.
Instead, after the aperture closed down the first time,,
the aperture stuck and remained open for all subsequent shots! The camera
didn't sense this and indicated all was well.
Now, three days into the trip, I had to wonder, when did this happen? Had I
ruined my first three days of shooting, in the best light? I didn't know, and
would not, until I got home. Luckily, little film was ruined. I caught it in
time. To fix it, I had to wedge a piece of wood into the aperture pin gap to
keep the pin from going too far and jamming. When I got home, I had the lens
repaired.
This problem cannot happen with the EOS electronic aperture.
On our last Kenya trip (2000), we had several Nikon camera/lens failures. One
of the most frustrating involved a 500mm lens stopping down to its maximum
aperture of f22 and sticking there. With Nikon, if you're using an F5 or F100
on the camera body, you can change aperture settings by rotating the control
dial on the camera body. The lens aperture is set to f22, but the aperture is actually
set, or changed, via the control dial on the camera. When this malfunctioned,
the victim was shooting at f22. This photographer, not 'catching on,' was
shooting wildlife images at 1/15th sec at f22, instead of usable shutter speeds
of 1/250th or greater at the appropriate aperture.
2. Lens variety. Canon has 3 tilt-and-shift lenses; Nikon now has one. Canon's offer all standard features, except autofocus; while Nikon's 85mm TS lens has an antiquated
preset aperture. This is absurd, patently absurd. EOS offers a unique 65mm 5:1
macro lens, which I have mixed feelings about, but still represents a wonderful
option. The new IS technology is spectacular, and will be covered later.
More importantly, perhaps, are the zoom options available. Our systems include
a lot of zooms. My 'kit' is this: 17-35mm, 28-135mm, 35-350mm, and the 400 2.8
with converters. Mary's 'kit' is: 20-35, 28-135, and 100 to 400, plus a her 300mm f2.8. If weight or size isn't an issue, as it
may not be for a trip to Florida, she may use her 500mm f4.5 instead. .
Mary chose the older 500 F4.5 over the new IS 500 F4 because the new lens
weighs 2-3 pounds more, and weight was a real concern. The 4.5 is much lighter
and easier for her to handle, and I suspect we'll probably sell that lens,
eventually, as she shoots more and more with the 300 IS and the converters. We
have A LOT of faith in the converters, as you'll see below.
Canon has announced a new lens technology, where weight on some lenses will be
reduced by 25%. If, or when, those lenses become available, we'll probably
upgrade to these lighter lenses. In the meantime, I'm seriously considering
using a 300mm f2.8 with converters as my prime lens for trips, to shave the
weight and bulk from my travel kit. However, when neither factor is an issue,
I'll stick with my 400 f2.8 - I love that lens!
Update: Our lens arsensal now includes that 300mm F2.8
(sort of replaced by the SIGMA 120-300mm F2.8 lens that accomplishes the same
thing but is more versatile with the zoom); 500mm F4, 70-200 2.8 and the great,
lighter version 70-200 F4, the incredibly versatile 28-300 zoom - one of our
truly favorite lenses, 600mm F4 - for when we wish to punish ourselves with
weight, although its a great car lens, 100mm and 180mm macro lenses, 24 and 90
TS lenses, and 20-35, 17-35, and 16-35 zoom lenses - as Canon upgraded, so did
we but I think we've maxed out there, 100-400 F5.6 - I sold mine, as the Sigma
took its place, but we held on to Mary's and we're happy to have it at times,
for the extra 100mm and the lighter weight than the Sigma. I may be missing
something, but you get the picture!
3. Excellent tele-converters. Although I used a 1.4X
frequently, and with complete confidence, on my Nikon lenses, I was never
confident with the 2X converter. Photo friends of mine swear by the 2X when
coupled with a 300mm 2.8 lens, and I've used that
combo, but I never felt that my louped slides were
truly RAZOR sharp. They lacked something, and I think that was the definitive
sense of sharpness.
Also, I've been annoyed that Nikon's converters don't work with all lenses.
Lenses shorter than 200mm required one converter (which I never bought), lenses
above that required another. Then, autofocus lenses
required still another converter, which wouldn't work with non AF lenses! I was
annoyed at this constant nickel-and-diming.
I gambled when I purchased my EOS system, relying on the sworn words of
discerning friends who claimed that the 2X converter was razor sharp with
certain lenses. I can attest to that - my 2X, when coupled with my 400mm F2.8,
is absolutely RAZOR SHARP. It is at least as sharp (to a Schneider 8X loupe) as
my Nikon prime lenses. The combo is wonderful.
This leads to another question many folks have had - why did I choose the 400mm
F2.8 over other EOS lenses. Again the reason for this was multi-faceted.
Because of our frequent air travels, we were beginning to worry about airline
carry-on luggage regulations and weight limitations. For our trips to Alaska or
to Africa, for example, I packed both a 300mm F2.8 and a 600mm F4 when I shot
with Nikon. With my 1.4X Nikon tele-converter, I then
had 300 2.8, 420mm f4, 600mm f4, and 840mm f5.6 combos, but I was also lugging
two rather substantial lenses.
With my Canon 400mm F2.8 I was able to bridge the gap between a 300mm 2.8 and a
600 F4 with just one lens. If I needed lens speed, and I often do, I had it at
2.8 with the straight 400. Granted, I was losing a 300 by now only having a 400
for my minimum focal length, but I could get around that by either adding a
1.4X to my 70-200 F2.8 (to make a 280mm F4 lens), or by using my 35-350 or
100-400 zooms. So, the loss of the 300 was inconsequential to me.
More importantly, when I added converters to the 400 f2.8, I had amazing
options. With a 1.4X I had a 560mm F4 lens, just 40mm short of my Nikon 600mm
F4 lens. I could live with the loss of 40mm to eliminate the weight of another
big lens. And, with the 2X, I had an 800mm F5.6 lens, just 40mm shy of the
840mm F5.6 lens I had using the 600mm F4 with a 1.4X.
Of course, I didn't have 1,200mm (600mm and 2X), but I rarely used this, and
did so almost exclusively for sunset shots where distant trees and huge suns
were combined. I did not use the 2X with my 600 for quality portraiture, it
didn't measure up. In my work, 840mm was my usual maximum, and I now had this
again with the Canon 400mm and 2X tele-converter.
The one disadvantage to the 400mm F2.8 lens is the weight, which is about equal
to that of their 600mm F4. EOS has shaved nearly three pounds off each, which
helps, and is a real advantage over Nikon's line, but the lens is still heavy.
Some photographers consider the weight option and choose the 600mm over the
400, opting for maximum reach potential. However, doing so eliminates the
possibility of tapping into speed (the 400s' 2.8) when speed is needed.
Further, and perhaps most important, the 400 has a minimum focusing distance of
3 meters (from the film plane), which translates into about 8 feet from the
front of the lens! The 600, in contrast, is 17 feet. So, add a 2X to the 400mm
and you have an 800mm lens that focuses to 8 feet, while adding a 1.4X to the
600 you have a 840mm lens that focuses to 17 feet, or less if you use extension
tubes. With my 400 and 2X I don't need the tubes!
To point out the glory of this arrangement, in Arizona recently I had a
tarantula hawk wasp (about 2.5 inches long) drinking at our bird waterhole. I
got half-size imagery, a composition I would have chosen with any lens combo
available to me, by simply moving to minimum focus and shooting with the 800mm.
I could not have done so with a 600mm and a 1.4X without adding extension tubes
as well.
My 400mm is a super zoom, too, being really a 400, a 560, or an 800, as I
juggle converters for the image size I need. And, believe me, the 2X is sharp.
Mary's super zoom will be the 300 2.8, 420mm F4, and 600mm F5.6, so she'll be
compromised only by losing the 700mm she had when she added a 1.4X to her
500mm, but now she'll have eye-control AF at all focal lengths.
The tele-converters work with all lenses, so I can
use the 1.4X or the 2X with my 90mm TS lens to have a 180mm TS macro lens, and
they work excellently with the 70-200 2.8, too. I won't use converters with the
35-350, and I'd think twice about using the 1.4X with the 100-400 and WOULD NOT
use a 2X with that lens. But, the converters are excellent, and only one set is
needed for any or all lenses.
Update: Although I still have the 400mm F2.8 lens, I rarely use it, and do so only in low-light situations, as I've done shooting prairie chickens at dawn, or screech owls in our yard. I've since replaced the 400 with a 600mm f4, and I used that for years, but eventually the weight (OK, I'm a wimp) of that lens directed me to buy a 500mm F4 for my normal use. I kept the 600 - it is still a great 'car' lens, but for my normal travels I now LOVE and fully endorse the 500mm F4.
4. Electronic Mirror Lockup. Different EOS bodies have different ways to
accomplish this, but with the EOS 3 we simply activate custom function 12-1 and
the mirror locks up at the first depression of the shutter release or
depressing of a remote switch. The second time the trigger is activated the
shutter fires and the mirror returns. With the RS, there is no mirror issue,
it's a pellicle mirror (a two way mirror). I use it when I want to see what my
flash is doing, for example, when shooting hummingbirds where I can see where
the wings are at the moment of the exposure (if the light is dim enough).
The big thing about the electronic mirror lockup is this: I do not have to
touch the camera body and possibly move the camera when locking up the mirror.
Only Nikon's top pro cameras even have mirror lockup, and this feature is
activated by depressing the DofF preview button while
flipping a not-too-easy to reach lever to lock up the mirror. You reverse the
procedure to bring it back down, later. That's not much of a problem if a
camera is tripod mounted, although there is still a risk that the 'hands on'
manipulation can shift a composition (it's happened to me). But it really is an
issue if you're balancing a big lens on a bean bag where the effort involved in
flipping the mirror could shift the camera's position. That cannot happen with
the EOS CF function.
Who would shoot a big lens off a bean bag with mirror lock up? I would, and I
frequently do so in low light when shooting static subjects on safari. On our
last trip, for example, I shot my 400mm with a 1.4X for a leopard in low light,
using a cable release to trip the shutter. Three other people, two
photographers and the driver, were in the vehicle with me. Everyone was still
while I made the shots, and they were sharp. I could have done the same thing
with my old Nikon F5 using a cable release and mirror lock up, but I would have
run a risk of shifting the composition as I flipped the mechanical mirror
lockup lever. For the life of me, I cannot understand why Nikon hasn't made
this a CF too, and offered mirror lockup in cameras other than their top of the
line. There is no reason I can think of why Nikon
hasn't incorporated this feature into their bodies. It would allow them to
offer mirror lockup in other bodies, and it would solve many user headaches.
Other EOS bodies have mirror lockup options via CF functions that may negate
default functions, should you choose to use it. Although it's really not my
concern, I still find it pleasing to know that photographers who cannot afford
the top of the line cameras still can enjoy a functional mirror lockup system
with an EOS camera.
With the EOS system, I also like the fact that the mirror returns down after
each shot, since it allows me to check to make sure the subject hasn't moved,
or grass or other obstructions haven't shifted and now block my subject (a
common problem when doing macro). Again, with Nikon, the mirror is locked up
until you manually reset it to its normal operating position.
5. IS, image-stabilization, technology. A top pro
recently knocked IS technology, saying that if you use a tripod you don't need
it. Not quite true, and for several reasons. One, the latest IS lenses work on
a tripod (the 300 2.8, 400 2.8, 500 4, and 600 4), and this is a MAGNIFICENT
advantage. The IS technology allows me to use a big lens on rickety, bouncing
platforms or walkways (the boardwalk at Corkscrew Swamp, for example), or from
a boat, and in heavy, buffeting winds, or with a lighter weight, formerly
insubstantial tripod, that can now handle an IS lens. In fact, in my December
2000 Question of the Month, I discuss the IS lenses and display an image made
at 800mm of a brown anole shot from Corkscrew's vibration-prone boardwalk. You'll see, the image is sharp!
I am crazy about this technology and these lenses. I have never been so excited
about glass. This IS stuff really, really works. With other IS lenses, the IS
will be handy when, indeed, hand-holding or bracing is the only option. Never
shoot from a tripod? Well, try shooting from a whale boat, or a canoe, or at a
garden where tripods are not allowed. Mary so loves her 100-400 and 28-135 IS
that she insisted I had my own set for our 10 days of whale shooting in Alaska
this summer, where shooting off a tripod was impossible. Zooms are extremely
handy for the unpredictable working distances common to whale photography, and
I was extremely happy with my results. In fact, in our Oct-Nov. Question of the
Month, I discuss whale photography. Every image in the portfolio included was
shot with a hand-held IS lens. They are sharp.
Nikon has finally released their first image stabilization lens, called a VR or
vibration reduction lens. As Nikon missed the whale boat with their TS lens
with a preset aperture, so again Nikon royally messed up by offering a $1,500
lens that lacks an internal motor. The lens is not an S lens, and the focusing
drive is powered by the camera, not by a motor in the lens. The result - the
lens is slow and noisy. I would strongly recommend anyone considering buying
that lens NOT doing so until you test it out for yourself. Is the speed fast
enough? Is it built to your satisfaction (it looks extremely cheaply built to
me). In short, I was not impressed, and I was really
disappointed in Nikon for not doing better. I'd suspect that many Nikon
shooters were counting on that lens as the answer and alternative to Canon's
EOS 100-400, which, by the way, many of our Nikon shooters were carrying for
their whale photography.
Update: Nikon has, of course, introduced several VR lenses, including the 200-400, but Canon still has a huge jump and advantage here, so the basic thoughts remain the same.
6. Intelligent Multiple-exposure options. The 3and RS have Multiple Exposure
dials that allow you to shoot up to 9 frames on a single frame, or more if you
simply redial another 9 frames each time you get to the last frame of a ME
sequence. The Nikon F5 had two options, either a double exposure, or a
continuous ME sequence where you can keep shooting the same frame until you
clear that CF function. I stopped using the CF when I forgot to clear it, and
shot nearly a roll of roadrunners on the same frame, number 21! I didn't catch
it until I stupidly pondered why I hadn't needed to change film yet! Duh!
I believe other EOS bodies have ME option, but that's moot. You'd want a EOS 3, a 1v, or RS if you're making the switch.
7. Depth of field preview. On the 3 and RS there's a button for this. Other EOS
bodies may have CF options. It's nice to know that you can get DofF preview on other bodies somehow, if you need it. I
know that some of Nikon's cheaper camera bodies lack the DofF
preview, and that may apply to Canon as well.. I would
not own a camera that did not have DofF preview. Period
8. 45 focusing points and eye-control. Nikon
F5's Cross pattern focusing sensors was a major advancement over other cameras,
until the EOS 3. Although it'd have been great to have an even larger area of
the screen covered with focusing points, the ones offered pretty much cover all
Points of Power. Skeptics might wonder why you need so many (well, in fact, we
only use 11, scattered around the screen, a feature of one of the 3's CFs), but the reality is, if they're there, you'll use
them. THEY OFFER A MAJOR ADVANTAGE FOR COMPOSING and quick
focusing to get the subject in focus where you want it to be.
Some EOS 3 users knock eye-control, and admittedly I've had problems with mine
off and on, especially when I'm holding the camera body in a vertical
composition. However, when I take the time to recalibrate the 3, and do so for
several different lenses, I've found eye-control fast and reliable,
and IT MAKES A BIG DIFFERENCE for speedy focus where you need it to be.
In fact, unless Canon gives me a 1V (not likely), I doubt very much if I'll
choose to buy one. I'd miss the eye-control option of the 3, and for almost
twice the cash, I'd rather have the insurance policy of a second EOS 3 body
(two 3s for the price of one 1V).
To sum this up, the 45 (or the 11 scattered) focusing points is a real asset,
we use them often. When we're doing birds in flight or other action subjects,
however, we often activate all 45 points and let the camera select the focusing
point (generally the nearest thing to the camera). This acts like a big net to
catch action, and I've shot fast-moving sequences that I didn't even see, and
that I'd never have captured on manual focus, and may have missed without the
big net of a 45 focusing sensor area.
Probably THE MOST IMPORTANT Reason for Switching
was this:
9. NPS vs CPS service. I'm sure I'll have horror
stories eventually about Canon's Professional Services, but I personally have
dozens about Nikon's. The worse: When I still shot Nikon, they held an N90
(pre-F5 days) and a AF 300 2.8 for over two months, and when I called, telling
them I needed the equipment in two weeks for a month in Kenya, they told me I
could get one or the other repaired, but not both Further, NPS would not loan
equipment to me for longer than two weeks, or let me take it out of the
country. CPS loaned me an entire system, for the length of my trip, and that
loan, occuring just before the F5 was released,
almost had me switching then. When the F5 came out, I only hoped that it would
be as good as the EOS 1 or 1N, it didn't even have to be as fast. I didn't
think I could afford to switch, so, when the F5 proved to be as good as it was, I stayed with Nikon.
But things change, and switching became an affordable option. One other point,
Nikon's Pro Services required a lot of documentation, and I know some great
pros who are published in major magazines but did not
have the 'credentials' for NPS. CPS, in contrast, almost seems too loose, but
bottom-line, if you need to be a CPS member you can be pretty easily. That's a
real advantage.
10. e-bay. E-bay and other on-line auctions (photo.com, etc.) now offered us
the chance to sell our Nikon equipment at a reasonable price. We had so much
Nikon gear, as we upgraded as each new advancement occurred,
that we had a lot of unused inventory. When Mary first bought a Nikon lens
Nikon had just released their first AF version of the 300 2.8. I'll assume they
had a strictly MF version of that previously. Later I bought the next
generation, the AF-1 version I think it was called, and later still the AF S
version appeared. Their 80-200 2.8 fiasco was even
worse, with a MF version, then an AF version without a tripod collar, then I
believe one with, then a S version without, then another with. At $1,500 or so
per zoom, one could tie up $6,000 in just upgrades! To Canon EOS's credit, they've had one great 70-200 2.8 that has a
tripod collar and works great with converters. I suspect they'll soon be
upgrading to an IS version, and that's OK. That IS stuff is worth it.
Anyway, because of our huge inventory, we could sell off our doubles and
triples of some lenses, or of the many camera bodies we evolved thru (F3, 8008,
F4, N90, F5 - at least one each for both of us!), and we could now buy (from
our sales thru ebay) the newest EOS cameras and
lenses without barely spending any money that wasn't from our ebay sales! So, in effect, our switch cost us nothing.
I may have missed some other points - the good feel of the EOS 3, the sense
that things were really thought through, and that the controls and features
where derived after speaking with actual shooters, but the points made above
where the major ones that compelled us to switch.
I don't think EOS is going to make me a better shooter, but the diversity of
equipment may allow me to become one as I now have greater options. I get tired
of hearing people disparage brands - "Oh, Nikon's better!" Or,
"Gag! You shoot Nikon!", or EOS, or Minolta, or whatever. We wanted
to shave weight for travel, which we did via the zooms and our choices of
telephotos, with the addition of great tele-converters.
Other features, like mirror-lockup were important, but secondary, but have
proved to be real bonuses since we've made the switch. While I was skeptical
about the IS technology, I opted to go for a big, expensive 400 2.8 because I
figured I'd go all the way, top of the line, if I made the switch, and I'm so
glad that I made that decision. Except for its obscene weight, I really love
that lens.
Still do, but I'd strongly recommend the 500mm F4 for the non-masochists amongst us.
Contact us by e-mail.
info@hoothollow.com
Or FAX us at: (717) 543-6423.
Return to HomePage.