Getting frustrated with Nikon ... so, what about Canon, then?

[kundalini]

I have 3 Nikon bodies, 12 Nikkor lenses and 3 Nikon flashes. Never a problem with any.

All I'll say is, if you're gonna jump....... jump with both feet.

 

[03civicdx]

just do like me and have a d40 and a canon

 

[epp_b]

Ah, did you get reports from the first 2 services on the 18-55? Did they actually change anything?

Nothing of great detail. The first time, they did squat and it came back broken. Second time, they took it apart and put it back together. Third time, they replaced the AF motor and now it seems to be fine.

And how well did the lens fit the camera? The mount nice and tight or a little loose? Wondering if its a contact thing or motor in the lens actually failing?

It mounts just fine. The 35/1.8 mounts tighter than any other lens I have. I've mounted it on a different Nikon body, the AF still doesn't work. It's definitely the lens.

 

[Montana]

Doesn't sound like you have a lot of money in your Nikon system. now is just as good of a time to jump as any.

 

[epp_b]

^ Not a lot of money in an absolute sense, but a lot of money for me

 

[KmH]

Like Kundalini I have just a bunch of Nikon gear: multiple bodies (6, right now, Pro to entry level) a bevy of Nikkor lenses including a couple kit lenses, I think I have 9 speedlights, a plethoa of accessories, batteries and power packs. None of it has ever failed or even hicupped. Maybe I'm just lucky.

At this point I could chronicle some of Canon's dirty laundry from the recent past but don't think it would really make any difference. From what I understand, Consumer Reports seems to agree with your assessment.

From decades of experience I know the fact is that those kinds of problems can happen regardless the gear maker.

You don't have much invested at this point so now would be as good a time as any to make the switch. It was my understanding you have, at least, a part time business going.

I would always worry about what I'd do if I start having similar problems with the new brand.

 

[epp_b]

^ I've sold one photo and done portraits once. Not really a business at all.

 

[photogincollege]

When you get to the d300 and above bodies, they have a much better focusing motor in them then the lower model cameras. (If I remember correctly)

 

[JerryPH]

Please, no insult, becuase I know it is hard, but the facts are, if you are trying to run a professional business, you need at LEAST semi-professional equipment.

The D40's are well known to be very slow to focus because they have no internal focus motors... these are ALL built into the lenses. If the lenses you are using are slow focusing, it is the lens' fault and less the camera's fault.

Once you get above the D200 level, they *all* have integrated focus motors in the cameras that are much stronger, faster and more accurate. I cannot talk about the D40, but I as you move up the line, it gets even better. I will say that the focus speed on my D700 absolutely kills the focus speed on my D200 using the same lenses and that the D3 focus speed is even better than on my D700.

If you want to place blame, let's be sure to place it in the right area. Your problem is camera based, not lens based and this is not a Canon vs Nikon thing... more of a low end dSLR vs a more capable dSLR required for your needs.

 

[epp_b]

When you get to the d300 and above bodies, they have a much better focusing motor in them then the lower model cameras. (If I remember correctly)

Er... I'm talking about AF-S lenses. They use their own motor is in the lens, not the one in the body.

The D40's are well known to be ver slow to focus because they have no internal focus motors... these are ALL built into the lenses. If the lenses you are using are slow focusing, it is the lens' fault, less the camera's fault.

Right, I'm aware of that. But, is the lag between "AF-ON" and the AF actually starting an issue with the body or the lens? I should really go to a Henry's or something and try out some high-end bodies (sadly, the nearest one is an hour-and-half drive for me as I live in "middle-of-nowhere, Canada").

 

[JerryPH]

Right, I'm aware of that. But, is the lag between "AF-ON" and the AF actually starting an issue with the body or the lens?

I still say camera. The D40 is slow, period. It is a consumer dSLR, made to give people the door in to the world of a dSLR at a bargain basement price and a hit in the performance area.

I should really go to a Henry's or something and try out some high-end bodies (sadly, the nearest one is an hour-and-half drive for me as I live in "middle-of-nowhere, Canada").

That's almost anywhere in Canada... we're pretty big... lol

Maybe next time you are closer, it would be good to try out a D300, as a pro or budding pro, that is about as low a camera as I would suggest, even if that means just to try it out. Anything under that is again consumer class material. I think the D50-60-90 models all do not have a focus motor integrated either. Anyways, none are what I would call pro or even semi-pro quality.

BTW, thanks for understanding that I was not putting down the D40, just that it has serious limitations as a camera needing to be pushed into the needs of a demanding or professional user.

 

[epp_b]

^ Er... D50 and D90 do have integrated AF motors to drive AF-D lenses.

 

[itznfb]

i'm going to have to say your expectations are unrealistic. your entire setup in your sig costs less than a high end point and shoot. i have a consumer body some some nice glass and i can say i don't have any of those issues. the D90 with the 70-200mm f/2.8 focuses instantly and accurately. my family has been shooting nikon since nikon was nikon and not once has there ever been a lens failure.

back to my original point.... if you're just going to jump ship to canon and max out at a $500 setup, you're not going to be any better off.

 

[epp_b]

^ Did you write that post to one-up and insult me or actually offer advice? I'm going for the former.

i'm going to have to say your expectations are unrealistic. your entire setup in your sig costs less than a high end point and shoot.

What point and shoot costs over $1500?

if you're just going to jump ship to canon and max out at a $500 setup, you're not going to be any better off.

Next time, try reading the thread before responding... unless you actually managed to find a brand new Canon 40D for $500.

 

[Montana]

Man, only you can make this choice. The 40D is rock solid piece of kit that has damn fast autofocus. Its my go to sports camera until I can swallow the price of a 1Dmk(insert roman numeral here).

The Nikon D300 is a bad a$$ camera as well, but will set you back a few more bones. Lots of people switch systems, and as far as what you own now, you not married to Nikon if you want to switch. You won't be disappointed with going higher into Nikon or jumping into mid level Canon equipment. Both systems are pretty much a wash in every aspect.