Body pondering

ElDude

ElDude

ElDude

Soldato
Joined
8 Apr 2004
Posts
2,734
Location
Wrexham
I've spent a few hours this evening talking to my mate about getting a camera. I was advising to get a Canon 60D as it's a decent camera and as I own it I'm very familiar with it's workings, then he mentioned Nikon, so I thought I'd look into them a bit more as I'm out of date with their stuff and didn't want to railroad him into my choices (I'm no daily mail reader :p). I have to say, I'm amazed at the quality difference of the D5100 for less money than the 60D and then the D7000; holy ****, that's a nice camera.

Are Nikon taking a hit on revenue with those prices, or are Canon just taking the mick with their body prices (5D MKIII aside!)? I honestly can say that if it wasn't for the fact I have a few grand invested in Canon lenses, I'd jump ship without a seconds thought.

That being said, I love my 100mm 2.8L IS USM that arrived this morning. Oo it's nice :)

Does anyone have any (NON FANBOY) thoughts on this pricing?
 
Nikon appear to be offering much greater value for money at the moment with their bodies. Combined with the fact that they seem to be out performing Canon at every price point with regards to sensor performance as well it makes you wonder what Canon have been doing. If the rumours are true and Nikon release an entry level 24MP FF D600 for sub £1500 then I think everyone will be scratching their head even more at the price of the 5DIII.

Whilst it's true that new Canon lenses 70-200mm, 24-70mm, 24mm etc have been more expensive than their Nikon counterparts, I still think Canon have a much more affordable range of lenses and Nikon still don't have lenses to compete with the likes of the F/4L lenses for their price and performance.
 
^^^
Even so, the latest non-pro Nikon 1.8 primes walk all over Canon's.. so swings and roundabouts imo.

As for Nikon's lens pricing, often where Nikon is more expensive, they actually have a better performing lens. With regards to body pricing they are obviously working hard to gain market share (which is good if your a Nikon user). But even if they reduce the margins on their bodies, body sales also generate many more lens sales, and apparently lenses have good margins.
I don't doubt that Nikon isn't making good margins on their bodies however, but I think it might be a little similar to consoles, where the console itself isn't very profitable (or even a loss leader) but the money is made from software sales...
 
Last edited:
Incidentally, what are the recommended lenses for someone starting up with Nikon, as he's bought the D7000 last night? I have literally no idea about them, and I'm not sure if you can apply the same thought process to Nikon lenses as I do with Canon e.g. cheap priced lenses will suck for IQ with the exception of the odd few like the nifty fifty, 85mm, etc.

I think he ordered the camera with the 50mm 1.8 which I've seen a lot of good reviews of for the Nikon.

I have to say, the only thing that puts me off the Nikon is the fact they're smaller, but it's millimetres so a battery grip would be similar sized to Canon. The IQ and contrast on Nikon lenses is very appealing to me. Shame I'm not in a financial position to switch brands, plus you never know, Canon could turn it around with their new launches (God, I hope so! I'm quite envious :D)
 
35mm 1.8g would be my next purchase...
As for any other lenses, it depends what he shoot's...

Edit: the 85 1.8G is also excellent.
 
Last edited:
Well yeah, as with anything. I was just wondering which are the quality lenses, which are the stinkers, which are the budget gems, etc.
 
I still love my Canon Ray :D I've only ever owned Canon, but I really am struggling to understand why Canon are pricing things as they are. Are they selling that many more lenses that they can absorb the loss of new users/ship jumpers to Nikon?

I was just looking at the D7000 compared to the 5D range, and there's very little in it. Still, I'd rip your hands off if you offered me a 5DmkIII that I could afford.

I really don't understand what Canon is planning. Possibly this rumoured entry full frame camera that Canon rumours have been mentioning, but even then, the D7000 is so good that it couldn't compete with that, as they'd have to make it as good to compete directly, then that would almost certainly impact on 5DmkIII sales.

I'm confused, and a bit jealous. I suppose my 60D is splash proof. Who needs IQ? :( It would make sense to me if Canon charged less for the bodies and as much as they do for the top lenses, while it seems that Nikon who have a decent range of lenses, are charging far less for the frankly far superior bodies. It just defies logic to me, why a company would do this unless they have something massive up their sleeves, which from all rumours I've read, they don't.
 
Last edited:
I can't stop thinking about this. It's driving me nuts. Canon are even refreshing their most revered lenses, and prices are £1800 for the 70-200 2.8 mkII, £2300 for the 24-70 mkII and I could go on and on about the huge prices the rest of the refreshes are, with the additional new lenses. Now I know Nikon prices can be equally high for the best glass they offer, but why is Canon pricing out enthusiasts like me? :(
 
I'm currently looking at the D7000 to replace my 400D as it does seem to be significantly better than the D60 (and cheaper...) and possibly better than the 7D (which is more expensive). However the lenses are the killer. Although Canon have increased their prices with their latest releases the general price points and availability of lenses make Canon the far superior company in the sense of the "ecosystem" (to coin a smartphone phrase).

EDIT: As for the f/1.8 lenses. Have another look. They don't seem to be significantly better than any of the Canon equivilents yet pricing is all over the place. The 35 f/1.8 is very keeny priced compared to the 35 f/2, yet the 28 f/1.8 around £620, the Canon is around £350... The 85 f/1.8 is much of a muchness on both systems... Also look at used prices of the older 70-200 f/2.8's, Canon are about £100-200 cheaper than the Nikon equivilents.

What Nikon really lack is the F/4 range of lenses. They have a 300 f/4 which doesn't even come with VR and that's about it... Canon's release of the 70-300L also has no real match in the Nikon world. Nikon appear to have a nice selection of lenses at shorter focal lengths but Canon have the significant advantage past around 100mm. At least that is what I've found looking around and it's a big pain when looking to move to the Nikon system. Just a shame you can't use Canon Lenses on Nikon cameras!
 
Last edited:
Yeah, that's why I don't sell up. I really like the Canon lenses. Looking at a lot of pro photographers, they use both bodies, depending on what they're shooting. I have to say though, I love the contrasty look of Nikon camera/lenses and the quality of the bodies makes it hard to argue to a new user to use Canon. You're looking at £200-£300 more to start up with Canon, have a lesser body and average lens, as Nikon also have the "nifty fifty" of their own.

I have to admit to being half tempted to purchase a D7000 when I get my backpay, but that would be silly, especially as I still need a flash for my Canon and also want a wide angle lens that's better than the Sigma 12-24, which annoyingly looks to be the 14mm super expensive one, or waiting until next year to see how much the rumoured 14-24 will be, and what aperture it'll have.
 
Last edited:
ElDude said:
I can't stop thinking about this. It's driving me nuts. Canon are even refreshing their most revered lenses, and prices are £1800 for the 70-200 2.8 mkII, £2300 for the 24-70 mkII and I could go on and on about the huge prices the rest of the refreshes are, with the additional new lenses. Now I know Nikon prices can be equally high for the best glass they offer, but why is Canon pricing out enthusiasts like me? :(
Click to expand...

That is why Canon have the f/4 range (although I think it's probably to do with size too, but that is important to me). With Nikon you have the choice between the 70-300 at around £450 and the f/2.8 range at around £2k-4k...
 
ElDude said:
I have to admit to being half tempted to purchase a D7000 when I get my backpay, but that would be silly, especially as I still need a flash for my Canon and also want a wide angle lens that's better than the Sigma 12-24, which annoyingly looks to be the 14mm super expensive one, or waiting until next year to see how much the rumoured 14-24 will be, and what aperture it'll have.
Click to expand...

Just get a 5d or D6/700 with a Tokina 16-28mm and sell off your old gear. The Tokina looks to be pretty much as good as the Nikon 14-24.

14mm just isn't that wide on a 60D or D7000
 
An Exception said:
What do you actually shoot, and are you sure the contrast difference your seeing isn't just processing?
Click to expand...


Anything that takes my fancy :D I'm a simple bunny :D When my back/knee isn't knackered, which annoyingly is less often these days, I like landscapes. I've found the 70-200 is great for distance shots of farms, fields etc. The 12-24 great for the closer shots of buildings I occasionally like to take, although the distortion is a git, but correctable to a certain degree.

My main lens, is my Sigma 50mm 1.4. I adore that lens, as it's as near to perfection for focal length on a crop body, as I can imagine it getting. I find myself using that for pretty much everything, and adjusting how I shoot to suit that.

Basically I'm building a collection of lenses, so I'm covered for all things. It's just the Sigma 12-24 is a bit soft until stopped down, so isn't much cop for gigs, etc. I want a 24-70 as my mate has just started a band again, and I don't want to be limited to the 50mm at events, as they'll most likely be pub gigs, so room is at a premium. The Sigma being 4.5-5.6 is too slow to be a viable option.

Basically I'm a jack of all trades, master of none :D
 
ElDude said:
Yeah, that's why I don't sell up. I really like the Canon lenses. Looking at a lot of pro photographers, they use both bodies, depending on what they're shooting. I have to say though, I love the contrasty look of Nikon camera/lenses and the quality of the bodies makes it hard to argue to a new user to use Canon. You're looking at £200-£300 more to start up with Canon, have a lesser body and average lens, as Nikon also have the "nifty fifty" of their own.

I have to admit to being half tempted to purchase a D7000 when I get my backpay, but that would be silly, especially as I still need a flash for my Canon and also want a wide angle lens that's better than the Sigma 12-24, which annoyingly looks to be the 14mm super expensive one, or waiting until next year to see how much the rumoured 14-24 will be, and what aperture it'll have.
Click to expand...

I dunno...

I'm currently pricing up a body (D7000 or 7D) and used versions of the 17-55 and 70-200 f/2.8 IS/VR Mk1's. Canon system comes out at around the same price (disregarding I'd probably choose the f/4 over the f/2.8 on the Canon) as the Nikon system because of the lens costs...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom