Another Canon v Nikon Question re: WA Combo

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Marty" <ehasz@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:46smr0t1gfl3l9pe1s1m3jjddmj14nv3ti@4ax.com...
>I have no DSLR equipment at present. I now need real WA and have been
> narrowed down to the following which run about $2000 - $2100 for each
> combo. Any opinions or experience?
>
> 1. Canon 20D with Canon 10-22mm F3.5/4.5
>
> 2. Nikon D70 with 12-24mm F4
>
> I lean towards the Nikon combo only because the lens will be available
> for use on a better body if I can some day afford one. The Canon lens
> I know will not work with 1.3 or 1.0 sensor cameras and Nikon seems to
> be sticking with the 1.5 for all.
>
> Probably I need to handle them both to decide. I have read everything
> available that I have found on each setup.
>
> Thanks in advance.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Marty <ehasz@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:46smr0t1gfl3l9pe1s1m3jjddmj14nv3ti@4ax.com:

> I have no DSLR equipment at present. I now need real WA and have been

Canon v. Nikon.

I like Nikon in general because they seem to think more about the big
picutre, and because their picture is bigger than Canon.

They have more lenses to choose from, etc.

Canon, on the other hand, seems to have choosen a slightly smaller
picture, but aimed to do it just as well, but at a lower cost.

There doesn't seem to be much point to it, but if I had a D70, I could
mount the 30 year old 50mm lens that I use as a loupe.

Based on the small sample of Canon and Nikon cameras and lenses I've used
over the years, I like Nikon stuff better; I think they think things
through a little more. Canon, otoh, seems to be a bit more innovative.

But the Nikon stuff costs more. If the Canon kit you specified does
everything you need, and if you will have no need for any other
lenses/accessories, then 10mm sound cooler than 12.

It's kind of like Toyota v. Honda (Toyota being Nikon).

Bob

--
Delete the inverse SPAM to reply

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

leo wrote:
[]
>>> I have no DSLR equipment at present. I now need real WA and have
>>> been narrowed down to the following which run about $2000 - $2100
>>> for each combo. Any opinions or experience?


If you're not completely set on the DSLR route, a Nikon 8400 with
wide-angle adapter gives 18mm FOV and costs a lot less.

David

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>I have no DSLR equipment at present. I now need real WA and have been
>narrowed down to the following which run about $2000 - $2100 for each
>combo. Any opinions or experience?

I would base my decision on the lenses you can get now. Particularly
for the ranges you are looking for, there's no perfect lens, and I
recommend you decide which lens's flaws you'd rather put up with.

And I suppose you've thought of this, but you'll get much better
results from scanning a slide from a film camera with a 16mm lens than
using a digital camera with a 10mm (16mm effective) lens.

-Joel

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please feed the 35mm lens/digicam databases: http://www.exc.com/photography
----------------------------------------------------------------------------