Why did you buy a Nikon?

roxics

roxics

Veteran
I posted a similar thread in the Canon forum yesterday, asking people why they bought a Canon over say a GH2/3. So I'm curious why you went with Nikon.

Personally I've always liked Nikon. I still own an FE film camera and I've owned a D40 in the past and tested out a D7000 for a week. My girlfriend currently owns a D3100. (I have no legacy glass accept and old 50mm) I've always loved the look and feel of Nikon cameras and the images they produce. Right now I'm reevaluating my camera system. I currently shoot with a GH2. But I'm really considering jumping ship to Canon or a Nikon. I bought the GH2 because of the hack and the great video but I've never been super pleased with the photos. Looking back at my old Canon and Nikon photos they all seemed to have more pop and sharpness to them. GH photos look like stills from a video camera rather than proper photographs. That's just my opinion.

My problem is I can't decide if I want to go Canon or Nikon. Canon has Magic Latern for adding more featues as well as the ability to control aperture in live view. They also have the 60D/70D mid range models with flip out screens. The only Nikon with a flip out screen is the D5200. But the D5200 lacks a focus motor for older AF-D lenses, yet these lenses seem the best for video. So it seems like if I went Nikon I'd have to buy twice as many lenses, a set for video and a set for photos with autofocus.

Either way Canon or Nikon feels like a better investment for me long term when it comes ot lenses compared to m43. I also like that I can potentially move up to full frame cameras and biger cameras in general. I have big hands and like bigger cameras, which seems to be against the m43 philosophy.

So why did you personally choose Nikon over Canon or a GH2/3?
 
I can tell you why I was very very very close to buying a D5200 (as an upgrade from my NEX-5N):
* clean image (no aliasing/moire) with decent sharpness and detail (not great, but better than, say, a Canon DSLR that's not shooting RAW)
* great DR (better than anything else at this price, including canon, sony, panasonic DSLRs, but not the pBMC, but that's not available yet and it has a very small sensor)
* not-great-but-at-least-decent codec, and clean 8-bit 422 HDMI out if internal codec is not enough
* all my lenses are manual so the no-changing-aperture-in-live-view thing doesn't affect me

Why I didn't pull the trigger:
* I decided my gear is much better than my craft right now (this was the main thing)
* I decided if I'm spending cash on a new camera I want RAW, or at least a lot of DR and something with more gradation than 8-bit
* I decided if I'm spending cash on a new camera I want full frame, or at least APS-C mirrorless so I can use it with a speedbooster

So instead I bought a Leitz 24mm f/2.8 and a speedbooster, and now my lens set is complete (24-35-50-90-135-180-300) and my NEX has become full-frame
 
People choose a brand for the same reason people support Man United over Man City or Everton over Liverpool. Mostly it is because it is what friends/peer group use and like. With Nikon and Canon systems there is little to choose between them and they leapfrog each other every 12-18 months. The slight advantage Nikon have is that all their lenses since 1957(?) use the same mount and there are very few that won't work on any Nikon camera.

The decision in my mind is to find out which one has the buttons "in the right place" and a menu system you like. The specifications are secondary as all modern DSLRs will outperform 35mm film cameras (for 99.99% of conditions) and most are working at the borders of what most humans can resolve anyway. The cameras that feel right in your hands are the ones you will do the best work with no mater what the specs say.

SO pick up and play with both God's Own Nikons and the Devil's Canons (not that I am biased :-) and see which ones "feel right" in *YOUR* hands. Then go with that brand.
 
^ That may be true in some cases, but far from all. Personally I make a point of buying lenses that will work on nearly every camera (vintage leitz for the Leica-R mount, they are cheap and super-awesome, and the only thing they won't work in is a PL camera). I started with a Canon camera, then another Canon, then moved to Sony, then nearly went for Nikon, and my last project was shot on a BMC.

Plus, if you say "The specifications are secondary as all modern DSLRs will outperform 35mm film cameras", you're definitely talking stills, not video...
 
I just bought a D5200 (woohoo!) for the following reason: amazing image quality with no moire/aliasing @ $700

I wish it had: higher resolution screen, 60fps @ 1080p.
 
Nikon background in photography with lots of AI and D lenses. I shot with a Letus, then moved to shooting videos with GH1 and AF100. These three video setups (Nikon adapted) were great—but I always need to have the DSLR at my side for photography as well. Then comes the D800; I've consolidated my hardware to just one camera now. I've had the "right" lenses all along, and have been acquiring M42 glass as well and adapted them to the D800. It's been a single, solid investment.
 
I have built up a huge collection of nikkors over the past few years. I'm a fan of the AF-D era primes. Cant say I dont enjoy shooting with my D800 (I even prefer the look and colors it puts out) but I've been renting/using the C300 more with my nikon glass cause its less of a headache for run/gun.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top