View single post by blackfox

Posted: Thu Jun 27th, 2013 06:57

Joined:	Thu Apr 12th, 2012
Location:	Flint, North Wales, United Kingdom
Posts:	1245
Status:	Offline

tis a very hard one to quantify ,i used to use canon had them through film cameras right through to digital ,by the time i had found my niche (i.e wildlife) photography i was on the verge of retirement ,so i never had the funding to work my way into the longer lenses . i changed to nikon after trying out a d7000 in store sold all my canon gear and started afresh .i hear what JK is saying about interfaces etc but the thing that clinches it for me is flexibility and durability ,with canon i found myself carting around 4or 5 lenses to cover most situations ,with nikon i can narrow that down to one ,my 300mm f4 with t.c's will cover 300mm ,420mm,500mm and with a flick of the full focus switch becomes a half decent pseudo-macro lens and its lightweight to .
a few weeks ago i bought a canon 1Dmkii off of my lad for a silly price and in all honesty i find it a good ,fast ,accurate camera limited in its 8mp but still useable .however having sat here trolling e/bay for a few weeks looking for a suitable lens i now realise why i changed systems .its great if you have a large budget but not otherwise .
turning to a close friend who has been through the same quandary recently and settled on canon coupled with a brace of big lenses his simple answer was look at my pictures jeff ,can you see a £20,000 pound investment improvement in them ,are they significantly better than yours .the answer is a resounding no ,in fact he stated that with the latest high megapixel cameras coming on stream the need for a large apeture long reach lens is fading fast and i.m.h.o a need for a camera with lower iso levels will soon be upon us possibly back to the days of film when iso or asa (lol) started at 50 iso .
they will probably ressurect that soon and hail it as the next big breakthrough and charge us zillions for it .!!!!!