MightyFalcon From Oman, joined Jun 2001, 384 posts, RR: 10 Posted (10 years 10 months 3 hours ago) and read 4479 times:
Hello everyone,
After 7 years of intense use of my Canon EOS 100, I decided it was time for me to get a new camera. I had first to make up my mind: Was I going digital (D60 for instance) or sticking to the good "old" SLR? It took me some time but I’ve finally decided to stick with a SLR, as I shoot slides mostly.
I get now to select a camera; this is where I would need some advice from you guys!
First of all, I have to say that I get a comfortable budget even though a SLR like a Canon 1V would be far too expensive for me. I’ve been using Canon for about 20 years now: I started with an AE-1, followed by an EOS 1000 (Fn, as far as I remember) to end up with an EOS 100.
Therefore, my choice was naturally going to be a Canon, and particularly the EOS 3: I could get one for 4,570 EUR, including 2 lenses (Canon EF 28-135 mm f:3.5-5.6 IS USM + Canon EF 100-400 mm f:4.5-5.6 L IS USM).
On another hand, I could get a Nikon F-100 (which I think would be the equivalent to the EOS 3, please correct if I’m wrong) for 3,280 EUR, including as well 2 lenses (Nikon AF 24-85 mm f:2.8-4 + Nikon AF 70-300 mm f:4-5.6 D ED).
The Nikon selection would be a bit cheaper but I get a 100-400 mm lens with the Canon one. Both brands definitely have very good products but which one would you elect as the best? I heard several times that Nikon lenses are of better quality; is that true? What would be your own choice if you had to select one of these?
Your comments and advice would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.
BA From United States of America, joined exactly 13 years ago today! , 11135 posts, RR: 61 Reply 1, posted (10 years 10 months 3 hours ago) and read 4458 times:
Have you also considered the Pentax line?
It's quite extensive ranging from a very basic manual SLR (the ZX-M) all the way to the pro MZ-S full of many features.
Canon and Nikon are great. I'm not telling you not to go with them.
I'm simply reminding you that there is also another good SLR brand out there.
Minolta is very good also.
I have a Pentax ZX-7 and I'm very happy with it.
Good luck.
Regards
"Generosity is giving more than you can, and pride is taking less than you need." - Khalil Gibran
BA From United States of America, joined exactly 13 years ago today! , 11135 posts, RR: 61 Reply 2, posted (10 years 10 months 3 hours ago) and read 4459 times:
By the way.
If you're concerned about good quality lenses. You can rely on Pentax.
Pentax is known for having some of the best lenses available in the market, although a bit pricey.
I'm sure some claim Nikon lenses are better than Canon lenses.
That's very difficult to say really.
Regards
"Generosity is giving more than you can, and pride is taking less than you need." - Khalil Gibran
BA From United States of America, joined exactly 13 years ago today! , 11135 posts, RR: 61 Reply 5, posted (10 years 10 months 3 hours ago) and read 4451 times:
Nikon lenses are I am sure excelent. They're known to have some of the highest quality lenses out in the market, so Nikon isn't something to worry about much.
However, I've heard there are a few Canon lenses that are of extremely low quality. Not sure the exact model, but Canon's cheapest 75-300MM lens I heard is just plain bad. I've heard it does a lot of vignetting (dark corners), colors turn out too contrasty and saturated, and produces soft images.
However, I've heard Canon's more expensive 75-300MM lense (I think 2 different lenses) are excelent. So it really depends.
I would avoid Sigma and the other 3rd party lens manufactuers unless you read on a particular lens which is supposed to be very good and at a lower price than the main brands. Simply put, some Sigma's are great, and others are just plain bad.
You have to be more cautious when looking into the other brand lenses.
Regards
"Generosity is giving more than you can, and pride is taking less than you need." - Khalil Gibran
Jwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 21 Reply 7, posted (10 years 10 months 3 hours ago) and read 4454 times:
Nikon lenses are I am sure excelent. They're known to have some of the highest quality lenses out in the market, so Nikon isn't something to worry about much.
True, Nikon has some excellent lenses, but so does Canon and the others.
However, I've heard there are a few Canon lenses that are of extremely low quality. Not sure the exact model, but Canon's cheapest 75-300MM lens I heard is just plain bad. I've heard it does a lot of vignetting (dark corners), colors turn out too contrasty and saturated, and produces soft images.
True, but so do other brands. There is not one brand that produces ONLY good or ONLY bad lenses (even Tamron is rumoured to have one or two good lenses).
I would avoid Sigma and the other 3rd party lens manufactuers unless you read on a particular lens which is supposed to be very good and at a lower price than the main brands. Simply put, some Sigma's are great, and others are just plain bad.
Tokina is excellent. Often better than Sigma. I'd go for the Tokina or Sigma professional lines anytime, especially if there is a big difference in price with the Nikon lens that is its equivalent.
You have to be more cautious when looking into the other brand lenses.
Not really, as with everything you have to do your research. Best is to ask people using the lens what they think of it, reviews in magazines and websites are often tainted by commercial interests.
You can't go wrong with either Nikon or Canon. Minolta and Pentax are also good. Sigma ain't bad either (though maybe not yet AS good as the high end Nikons).
Best 35mm SLRs by a long stretch are probably Leica, and they certainly make the very best lenses. But expect to pay a lot for them.
OH-LZA From Finland, joined Jun 2001, 1000 posts, RR: 5 Reply 8, posted (10 years 10 months 3 hours ago) and read 4449 times:
The Canon 100-400mm and Nikkor 70-300mm can't be compared, the Nikkor is an entry level lens, and the Canon is a higher quality lens. If you get a Nikon you should look at the Nikkor AF VR 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D ED as a comparision to the Canon 100-400mm.
MUC_Spotter From Cayman Islands, joined Apr 2002, 154 posts, RR: 2 Reply 9, posted (10 years 10 months 2 hours ago) and read 4449 times:
the Canon set seems to be a good deal. I have a EOS 30 (and a D30) with the same lenses and they are doing their job (although I've had some problems with the autofocus after less than 2 years with the 100-400)
MightyFalcon From Oman, joined Jun 2001, 384 posts, RR: 10 Reply 10, posted (10 years 10 months 2 hours ago) and read 4444 times:
Sorry, I was away for a moment!
Thanks to all for your comments. I've got your point: Some lenses are good quality ones, some others aren't... I read in this forum some very good comments about the Canon 100-400 L and I had found in several occasions (airshows, for instance) my own 75-300 USM... a bit short, therefore my selection.
Although I'm a Canon long-time user, I wouldn't buying another brand. OH-LZA talked about the Nikkor AF VR80-400 mm f/4.5-5.6D ED. Has anyone any idea of the price of this lens.
Correct me if I'm wrong, the D lenses from Nikkor are the new, high-quality ones, aren't they?
Nscaler From United States of America, joined Aug 1999, 243 posts, RR: 6 Reply 13, posted (10 years 10 months 1 hour ago) and read 4427 times:
It's not the camera its the photographer who shoots the pictures...
With that said, the camera is a tool and good tools always help. I personally shoot Nikon, not because its better than Canon (well... yeah it is, but that's another story) but if you purchase either line's pro lenses you will be happy. If you purchase their consumer lenses then you might as well have bought into Pentax or Minolta.
And most importantly, remember to have fun! Too many on this board nowadays shoot only for a.net and if they get rejected they think it is the end of the world...
MightyFalcon From Oman, joined Jun 2001, 384 posts, RR: 10 Reply 14, posted (10 years 10 months 1 hour ago) and read 4420 times:
AKE0404AR,
Indeed, I do use Canon lenses: EF 35-80 mm f/4-5.6 USM + EF 75-300 mm f/4-5.6 USM. Although I'm pretty satisfied with the 35-80 mm, the 75-300 mm produces some vignetting and kind of soft pictures. I'm would like to use my 300 mm more often: I like shooting portraits, but living in a Muslim country, it's not that easy, almost impossible I should say. I like photographing birds as well. That's why I'm interested in a 100-400 mm.
As for going to the local photoshop... Forget about it! Although I live in a terrific and very photogenic country (try it once guys, it's worth the trip!) it's hard to find good equipment. When I went to the Canon retailer, the best camera they could produce was an EOS 5. In Nikon's, the F-55 and 65 only were available.
I going to Europe for one month within a couple of weeks but I'll be on the move all the time; I only have 5 days available to buy my new equipment. Pretty short! So I went on several website, trying to get the specs but still rely on you all for some good advice.
Nscaler From United States of America, joined Aug 1999, 243 posts, RR: 6 Reply 15, posted (10 years 10 months 1 hour ago) and read 4420 times:
Since you already own Canon lenses, the choice should be much simpler - go with Canon. They'll work on your new body and allow you time to really invest in some A+ glass.
MightyFalcon From Oman, joined Jun 2001, 384 posts, RR: 10 Reply 16, posted (10 years 10 months 1 hour ago) and read 4423 times:
No worries, Nscaler, I'm having a lot of fun... outside A.net! In order to give you some idea of how much I enjoy photographing, I would tell you that during a 3 week trip in Vietnam last February, I shot almost 1,200 slides. Not too bad.
Pro line: Does it include the Canon 28-135 mm IS USM, the EF 100-400 mm L IS USM and the Nikkor D ED lenses?
MightyFalcon From Oman, joined Jun 2001, 384 posts, RR: 10 Reply 18, posted (10 years 10 months ago) and read 4407 times:
Vasco,
I thought about it for a while: quality wise, this would be the best solution but far too restrictive. With a zoom, you're loosing some quality but it replaces a whole range of lenses.
I've just spend some time browsing the Nikon website, checking at the specs of the Nikkor AF VR80-400mm: Looks pretty good too.
I want to replace my EOS 100, which I'll keep as a second camera, but I definitely want a better lens than my Canon 75-300mm. It's not an easy choice to make as I usually keep my cameras for a long time and use them a lot.
AKE0404AR From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2534 posts, RR: 50 Reply 20, posted (10 years 10 months ago) and read 4382 times:
MF,
Just my personal opinion. It just does not make sense to have 2 bodies from
2 different manufacturers.
Either Canon or Nikon!
I am a Nikon shooter and back about 3 months, since I wanted to go digital I was thinking about selling my 3 Sigma lenses (Nikon mount) plus the body and go with the Canon D60 and buy some lenses for that one as well.
My first opinion was to keep the Nikon set up and buy a Canon D60 plus lens.
Maybe I was smoking dope at that time, common sense did prevail and I did not do it!
Nowadays I am shooting Nikon all the way, 80-200 f2.8 D ED, plus 400 f2.8 and I am happy with my decision.
Still thinking about going Digital, but as for now I don't have any money left!
MightyFalcon From Oman, joined Jun 2001, 384 posts, RR: 10 Reply 22, posted (10 years 10 months ago) and read 4388 times:
Vasco,
I see what you mean and I have to say that, except for my 75-300mm, I've always been happy with Canon. Buying another one would make sense commonality wise and I'm know pretty used to Canon, that's for sure.
The thing is that I always get that little voice telling me that Nikon is better..! And I cannot get rid of it!
Skymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 23, posted (10 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 4389 times:
Therefore, my choice was naturally going to be a Canon, and particularly the EOS 3: I could get one for 4,570 EUR, including 2 lenses (Canon EF 28-135 mm f:3.5-5.6 IS USM + Canon EF 100-400 mm f:4.5-5.6 L IS USM).
This is precisely the 35mm set up I now use, and I would have no hesitation in recommending it to anyone else, except perhaps that I actually slightly prefer the cheaper 28-105 lens to the 28-135IS - I used to have the 28-105 but sold it because the EOS-3 came as a package with the 28-135. I marginally regret that decision.
I don't think you can really go wrong with either Canon or Nikon, and indeed Minolta and Pentax will probably offer a credible solution too. One caution perhaps over Pentax is whether you might in the future go digital - at present, unlike Nikon and Canon, Pentax doesn't seem to have a realistic digital SLR on offer, whilst Canon and Nikon offer you the opportunity to move to digital in the future and still use the same lenses.
One thing that might weigh in favour of the 100-400L IS is that it can be used with Canon extenders, whereas the cheaper lenses in the Canon range cannot. The 100-400L IS + 1.4x extender (which I got free from Canon as a special offer with the EOS-3) produces some very good results, and would stretch your reach up to 560mm, or the 2x extender would stretch it yet furter - the IS can make hand holding at these lengths possible, and the 100-400 + 1.4x on the EOS-3 also offers autofocus whereas on other cameras the autofocus will disengage below F8. I'm not suggesting you buy an extender now, but its worthy of consideration for the future.
Until very recently I also had the cheap Canon 75-300 lens that some people here have wasted no time in trashing. Almost all my pictures (726) on this site were taken with this lens and as long as people understand its a different proposition to the 100-400L IS, then even the lowly 75-300 is a good lens that produces nice results as long as you try to steer clear of wide open at 300mm.
AKE0404AR From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2534 posts, RR: 50 Reply 24, posted (10 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 4382 times:
EOS 3 USD 889.95
28-135mm USD 419.95
100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USD 1409.00
--------------
USD 2718.90 plus shipping
25 Gerardo: Hi MightyFalcon First of all - and that's perhaps something very personal - I would take both cameras in the hand and try to figure out, how they will
26 Cfalk: I've had the Canon 100-400mm L IS lens for over a year, and it is a terrific lens. It is very sharp (almost as sharp as the 70-200 2.8 L), the stabili
27 Wietse: I've got a small remark here, I really do not think the 75-300mm USM is a soft, vignetting lens. I have compared images taken with that lens to some s
28 Staffan: http://www.internet-foto.de/ Canon EOS3 + EF28-135 €1.575,00 Canon EF100-400 €1.797,00 That adds up to €3372,00 Staffan
29 AKE0404AR: Staffan, no one beats B&H in price and service Wietse wrote: "I am biased towards Canon, I like the design and lenses better..." I think it is because
30 Staffan: Vasco, well, maybe not in price, but AC-Foto (the link I posted) have probably the best service I've ever had. They are great, and they usually have m
31 MightyFalcon: Hi guys, Gee..! Thanks for all the comments! I left for a few hours (I slept all afternoon as I'm between 2 night shifts) and during that time, you ke
32 Jwenting: Another excellent German supplier is http://www.technikdirekt.de. Don't be put off by the fact that they don't sell only cameras, they carry almost ev
33 Staffan: MightyFalcon, Prices in Germany are alot lower than the ones in Belgium, the link I gave you is to a shop in Aachen, Germany, only a 1 hour drive from
Sponsor Message: 
From Oman, joined Jun 2001, 384 posts, 
From United States of America, joined exactly 13 years ago today! 
, 11135 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, 
From Finland, joined Jun 2001, 1000 posts, 
From Cayman Islands, joined Apr 2002, 154 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
Printer friendly format 
