Building a Film and Digital System - Age Old Canon v Nikon

Buceph

Within the next two weeks I'll be slapping down my cash and finally dedicating myself to a system. I've had on loan to me a DSLR (Nikon D40) and an SLR (Eos 3000v.) Up until an hour ago I was pretty much decided on Nikon without looking too hard at Canon. The Nikon F5/F100 choice makes for a compelling argument for them, seeing as good examples of both cameras are readily available. However, I was becoming increasingly dismayed with the differences in Nikon's systems, different lenses worked with different cameras (beyond the FX/DX dichotomy,) certain modern flashes wouldn't work with older bodies, etc. I was resigned to put up with that, until an hour ago. And I saw a Sigma 300mm F4 available for dirt cheap for the Canon. While I had resigned myself to no sports photography (I simply couldn't afford long, fast lenses for the foreseeable future) this is offering something new. I could shoot sports on B&W film and develop them myself on Canon. In theory I could move onto shooting colour film and developing myself.

The debate between the two systems doesn't really amount to much, for me, when I compare their digital offerings side by side. To me they're much of a muchness. However, Canon's integrated post-FD world has suddenly become a possibility for me.

Am I mad to abandon the F100/F5 idea that I had latched onto? (Mainly for the feel of the cameras and the look of them.) Or is Canon going to win out in the final furlong? If I am going towards Canon, what should I be on the look out for? At least with Nikon, however divisive we may be, there is always Ken Rockwell to steady your thoughts with.

I think I need a bit of coaching when it comes to Canon.

jpb1974

6 of one - half a dozen of the other if you ask me.

I use Canon for digital but own both Canon (EOS-5) and Nikon (F100) film bodies (cos I like cameras).

To me the EOS-5 and F100 are more or less one in the same thing. If you gave me a F5 with 50 extra features I'd still use it exactly the same as the F100 i.e. aperture priority mode and nothing else.

I have invested in plenty of Canon lenses for my digital gear, so for that reason the EOS-5 gets more use.. but had I have been a Nikon user to start with then I'd be using the F100 more.

It's all the same at the end of the day... I think.

aidanic

Buceph wrote: »

I think I need a bit of coaching when it comes to Canon.

I'd say your thoughts N or C are about right. On the Canon front, I threw my lot in with Canon almost exactly two years ago. I had a mix of Canon, Sigma and M42. No Nikon - could never afford it.

If you do go down the Canon route, dump the 3000v and get an EOS-30 for < €50 on eBay. You'll be happier.

I found that the EF lens system suited me, and my 400D, and the growing family of analog Canons. Slowly over the rest of my life, I'll move towards f/2.8 L glass. I'm not too impressed with the EF-S and the Sigma DX system, since some 50% of my shots are on film, and lens sharing is difficult (DX/EF-S being APS-C only).

Post some more questions, and the natives will be nice

Hugh_C

Nothing to choose between the two manufacturers, both excellent systems. The only reason I went down the N route is because I have big hands and the N balance felt better. Negligible differences between systems, inertia and investment are the reasons for me not changing now,

kfish2oo2

Hugh_C wrote: »

Nothing to choose between the two manufacturers, both excellent systems. The only reason I went down the N route is because I have big hands and the N balance felt better. Negligible differences between systems, inertia and investment are the reasons for me not changing now,

Funny that, I went with Canon for exactly the same reason - all the Nikons in the price range felt too small in my hands!