Nikon...GRRRRR!

dukeboy1977 · Dec 30, 2010

I'll start off by saying I'm a Nikon guy, always have been. Until I've noticed a few things about them recently that gets under my skin a little, I've considered them better than Canon but now I'm not so sure. Nikon, as you all are aware I'm sure, has not put focus motors in alot of their camera bodies so their lenses need motors, which raises the price. The bodies which DO have motors are either older, like my D70, or they are very expensive for the average person like myself. Their MP's are also lower, even when you get up to their more expensive models. I understand MP's aren't everything for most photos, BUT if you need to do alot of cropping or print anything of decent size for someone, then they come into play. I wish Nikon would make a better resolution, decently priced body for people like me who can't afford a 'professional' model! I'm still considering jumping to Canon, but I have too much Nikon stuff to sell if I did and I know it won't fetch what I have invested or reasonably close...so I'm kinda stuck now. Oh boy, what ever will I do!? lol I may be just venting my frustration, so sorry for wasting your time. Comments welcome as always!

Destin · Dec 30, 2010

dukeboy1977 said:
I'll start off by saying I'm a Nikon guy, always have been. Until I've noticed a few things about them recently that gets under my skin a little, I've considered them better than Canon but now I'm not so sure. Nikon, as you all are aware I'm sure, has not put focus motors in alot of their camera bodies so their lenses need motors, which raises the price. The bodies which DO have motors are either older, like my D70, or they are very expensive for the average person like myself. Their MP's are also lower, even when you get up to their more expensive models. I understand MP's aren't everything for most photos, BUT if you need to do alot of cropping or print anything of decent size for someone, then they come into play. I wish Nikon would make a better resolution, decently priced body for people like me who can't afford a 'professional' model! I'm still considering jumping to Canon, but I have too much Nikon stuff to sell if I did and I know it won't fetch what I have invested or reasonably close...so I'm kinda stuck now. Oh boy, what ever will I do!? lol I may be just venting my frustration, so sorry for wasting your time. Comments welcome as always!

The D7000 is far from cheap, but it's even farther from professional. If you want a camera with a high megapixel count, and in body focus motor then it's what you have to go with. Personally, 99% of photographers would be fine with the D90 and it's 12mp sensor.

Even the D80 is a good little camera body with a built in motor, and 10 megapixels. And it's selling for $400ish. Heck, it's what I'm shooting with, and for what I payed I can't complain. It gets the job done.

FYI, getting more megapixels will reveal more flaws in your lenses, and you'll start to notice the softness of some of them, which will make you want/need to spend more money on better glass

bigboi3 · Dec 30, 2010

Looking by the "nikon" equipment you have you're not really invested into the Nikon brand. Go ahead and switch over.

PatrickCheung · Dec 30, 2010

Why switch when you already have a body with a motor? If you want a good, relatively new body with a motor, now's the best time to pick up a D90 :] No offense, but if cropping is an issue, you could always try composing better, or using that 55-200 of yours to get a tighter crop? I understand that cropping is important for those spur of the moment shots, but again, usually 10 MP is way more than enough to make a decent sized photo.

If you want a decent body with a motor and a decent MP count then get a D90. :]

Bitter Jeweler · Dec 31, 2010

Ahhhh...the grass is always greener...

flea77 · Dec 31, 2010

Ummm, D70, D80, D90, D7000, D100, D200, D300, D300s. How many different models would you like? None of those are "pro" models, all have motors in them, and they range from $200-$1700 for the body, and from 6MP to 16MP. That seems like a pretty good range to me.

Is there a specific combination you are looking for and not finding?

Allan

point-&-shoot · Dec 31, 2010

Bitter Jeweler said:
Ahhhh...the grass is always greener...

it sure is...

CapM · Dec 31, 2010

Do it. How much do you want for your 35 & 50mm?

enzodm · Dec 31, 2010

Bitter Jeweler said:
Ahhhh...the grass is always greener...

In this case, the neighbour' courtyard is made of cobbles.

Canon EOS do not have AF motor in the body (never), only on lens. (but yes, the cost like they do not have motor...):

dukeboy1977 · Jan 1, 2011

enzodm said:
Bitter Jeweler said:

Ahhhh...the grass is always greener...

Click to expand...

In this case, the neighbour' courtyard is made of cobbles.

Canon EOS do not have AF motor in the body (never), only on lens. (but yes, the cost like they do not have motor...):

Really? I swear I read that Canon has motors in all their bodies on here...I need to do research on this stuff before I start 'dreaming of better'! lol In this case, I WILL STAY a Nikon guy. Why switch when I'm already familiar with my equipment and another brand is NOT better than what I'm used-to?? The idea is just crazy! Thanks for reassuring me that my idea was crazy guys, my wallet will appreciate you all!! lol lol

redtippmann · Jan 1, 2011

Well am glad nikon isn't caught up in the race for more megapixles. I have a 16mp sensor and I sometimes really wish I didn't. The RAW files are HUGE (225 on a 8gig card) so I can have needed to buy much more storage.... That isn't too bad when I picked up an 8gig card for $40 but keeping track of all of them is a hassle.

Plus I think Nikon is concentrating more on their ISO performance which I would rather them do.

Vinny · Jan 1, 2011

I don't know how much you spent on your equipment but IMO maybe you spent the money unwisely! Not saying Nikon is better than Canon or if the reverse is true but sometimes problems arise because the purchaser made the mistake.

You have 2 older Nikon bodies with 2 lower end Nikon kit lens - why? I bought a new D90 with the 18-105 and 70-300 VR for $1500; probably about the same amount for what you paid for your set up. Is the glass better - maybe a little, maybe not but I got a "newish at the time" body that can handle most Nikon glass. If you bought the equipment a piece at a time maybe you should have saved it all and bought it it in one shot.

My suggestion is to save some money and if you want to get a "better" camera and want to stick with Nikon go for a D90 or a D7000 as was suggested and sell the other bodies.

It's not Nikon's problem that they put out various equipment and the end user picks the wrong one.

DVC Mike · Jan 1, 2011

Bitter Jeweler said:
Ahhhh...the grass is always greener...

Agreed. Both Nikon and Canon make great cameras. If you've invested in lenses and accessories for one brand, I think there's little reason to switch.

KmH · Jan 1, 2011

dukeboy1977 said:
....Nikon, as you all are aware I'm sure, has not put focus motors in alot of their camera bodies so their lenses need motors, which raises the price.....

You don't seem to know, none of Canon's camera bodies have a focus motor in them and haven't since Canon introduced the EF-mount in 1987. Every Canon lens has a you-have-to-pay-extra-for-it focus motor in it, if the lens can auto focus.

Focus motors are not expensive. VR or IDS adds way more to the price of a lens than a focus motor does.

If people were not so dependent on automatic everything cameras, they would cost less.

But, the camera makers know that the more the camera can do on it's own, so the human can mindlessly just click the shutter, the more cameras and lenses they can sell.

flea77 · Jan 1, 2011

KmH said:
If people were not so dependent on automatic everything cameras, they would cost less.

But, the camera makers know that the more the camera can do on it's own, so the human can mindlessly just click the shutter, the more cameras and lenses they can sell.

You know, I would actually pay more for a camera that did less, just better.

Allan