Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 30

Thread: Is canon really cheaper than Nikon/ Nikon prices really high

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    singapore
    Posts
    431

    Default Is canon really cheaper than Nikon/ Nikon prices really high

    We know that USM in canon some are really very cheap. for example Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L USM i think it is only $2000 But for nikon it is 80-200mm f2.8 D ED AFS Zoom Lens cost about 2800

    And if i want to get a grey version or the nikon 80-200 i have to pay about 1000 more. it is really worth it?...for the same optics but different colour

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    6,405

    Default Re: Is canon really cheaper than Nikon/ Nikon prices really high

    Originally posted by nicholas1986
    We know that USM in canon some are really very cheap. for example Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L USM i think it is only $2000 But for nikon it is 80-200mm f2.8 D ED AFS Zoom Lens cost about 2800

    And if i want to get a grey version or the nikon 80-200 i have to pay about 1000 more. it is really worth it?...for the same optics but different colour
    Because Nikon is better.

    I don't think the Canon 70-200 is $2000, should be more than that. Unless I am way outdated in terms of pricing. On the other hand, Nikon is usually more expensive than Canon. One exception is the EOS 1V, which cost more than the Nikon F5.

    But who cares? At the end of the day, whether you use Canon, Nikon, Minolta, Pentax, Seagull or whatever, it's the output that counts.

    Regards
    CK

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,911

    Default Re: Is canon really cheaper than Nikon/ Nikon prices really high

    Originally posted by nicholas1986
    We know that USM in canon some are really very cheap. for example Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L USM i think it is only $2000 But for nikon it is 80-200mm f2.8 D ED AFS Zoom Lens cost about 2800

    And if i want to get a grey version or the nikon 80-200 i have to pay about 1000 more. it is really worth it?...for the same optics but different colour
    Hmm. There are several problems with this statement. First as CK pointed out, I don't think a 70-200L really costs $2000. I believe it's closer to $2400. At B&H, it's US$1129 while the AF-S lens is US$1269, nowhere near to S$1000.

    That's not a huge difference. Your standpoint however is quite clear. It is obvious you are leaning towards the Canon and generating the extra difference in price from the low Canon price to the $800 difference evolving into a "about $1000" difference.

    And how did you decide the optics are the same? They are not. Whether there is a practical difference or not is a different story, but the optics are not the same...

    And as with my previous post, for some things Nikon is cheaper, for others Canon is cheaper. As CK said the F5 is cheaper than the 1V, I'm also adding the D1x and the 1D to the equation. Also the 50/1.4. And quite probably some other stuff but since I don't go around comparing prices between systems since I only use one system, I don't know for sure.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    6,405

    Default

    Oh, I forgot. Canon lens hoods are more expensive than Nikon's as well, but I had to admit they are nicer (with that nice velvet thing on the inside). But still does not justify their >$50 price tag for one.

    If I am not wrong, the Speedlite 550EX is also more expensive than the Nikon SB28 (and same price as the DX).

    So there, not every Nikon is more expensive than Canon. Don't worry about the price differences, if you are using one system, the other shouldn't bother you coz it's not going to fit.

    Regards
    CK

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    singapore
    Posts
    431

    Default

    Originally posted by ckiang
    Oh, I forgot. Canon lens hoods are more expensive than Nikon's as well, but I had to admit they are nicer (with that nice velvet thing on the inside). But still does not justify their >$50 price tag for one.

    If I am not wrong, the Speedlite 550EX is also more expensive than the Nikon SB28 (and same price as the DX).

    So there, not every Nikon is more expensive than Canon. Don't worry about the price differences, if you are using one system, the other shouldn't bother you coz it's not going to fit.

    Regards
    CK
    but don't forget that the 550EX is more powerful than the SB28

  6. #6
    BenJR
    Guests

    Default

    Originally posted by ckiang
    Oh, I forgot. Canon lens hoods are more expensive than Nikon's as well, but I had to admit they are nicer (with that nice velvet thing on the inside). But still does not justify their >$50 price tag for one.

    If I am not wrong, the Speedlite 550EX is also more expensive than the Nikon SB28 (and same price as the DX).

    So there, not every Nikon is more expensive than Canon. Don't worry about the price differences, if you are using one system, the other shouldn't bother you coz it's not going to fit.

    Regards
    CK
    Yo!

    The Nikon 20-35 lens hood has a velvety lining inside, and it only sells for $25!

  7. #7
    BenJR
    Guests

    Default

    Originally posted by nicholas1986


    but don't forget that the 550EX is more powerful than the SB28

    Not wanting to start a "WAR", but Nikon speedlite technology is still worlds apart from anyone else save for a pro with time, a kind patient subject and a trusty flash meter.

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    6,405

    Default

    Originally posted by BenJR


    Yo!

    The Nikon 20-35 lens hood has a velvety lining inside, and it only sells for $25!
    You must be mistaken. Canon did not specify their guide number properly ( 180 ft at ISO 100 but at what focal length? Probably at 105mm).

    Nikon SB28 is rated at a GN of 115 ft at ISO 100, 35mm.

    So there, different benchmarks, and of no relevance to each other, totally incomparable.

    Regards
    CK

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,911

    Default

    Originally posted by nicholas1986


    but don't forget that the 550EX is more powerful than the SB28
    Here we go again. Falling victim to Canon marketing spiel. Or just massaging the figures again like you did with the lenses? The 550EX has exactly the same power output as the SB-28. Canon loves to trumpet their figures for consumers who should know better, in a similar way they claim IS, DO etc are the wonders of the world and you can't take good pictures without them.

    Adjust those numbers down to an equivalent 35mm angle of view coverage, and you get a similar guide number of, erm, 36m. Yup, exactly the same. The only minor time you get a bit more juice is between 85mm and 105mm where the Canon zooms a bit more to concentrate the flash slightly more. GN difference in this case is a minor 50 v 55m. Already VERY powerful in either case, and a 10% difference.

    I had this very same argument with Practical Photography. Some months back (prob more than a year now), they published one of their flash reviews. It was absolutely shocking, had several mistakes, and lots of inconsistencies. It was fairly clear they had just got someone to quickly read the specs and write the article. Among other things, they too claimed the 550EX was better value for money because it was more powerful than the SB-28. I wrote them an email and received the curt email that they didn't agree with me, but it would be forwarded to the editorial team anyway because I was entitled to my opinions. The worst reply I've ever had seeing as they completely bottled it. I never got any further reply than that.

    Alas, a fellow pro in the UK also wrote to them and offered to donate 200 to charity if he was right and they were wrong. I don't think they ever did, but at least they acknowledged him and published a correction in the next issue. But I've never picked up another copy of the magazine since. Not as much for the errors but more for the way they brushed me aside.

  10. #10

    Default

    Originally posted by nicholas1986


    but don't forget that the 550EX is more powerful than the SB28
    No, where did that come from? Do your research a bit more properly first.

  11. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    6,405

    Default

    Originally posted by YSLee


    No, where did that come from? Do your research a bit more properly first.
    From the marketing department of Canon. Unfortunately, there is no standard way of expressing GNs. Or maybe he checked up the GN for Canon in feet, and the Nikon in meters.

    Regards
    CK

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    singapore
    Posts
    431

    Default

    well maybe i should not even start this topic
    Should do more research 1st
    but BTW do you think that i should change to canon
    and i still feel that canon is cheaper (they apply a lot of technology to most of their lens)

  13. #13

    Default

    Originally posted by nicholas1986
    well maybe i should not even start this topic
    Indeed, maybe you shouldn't.

    Should do more research 1st
    Yes, I'm glad you realise that.

    but BTW do you think that i should change to canon
    Now, you're just plain confusing me. Are you going to do research, or are you going to collect opinions?

    You want my opinion? If you want to spend money, go ahead. Clearly you're the kind that must spend money (and a lot of it) before you're happy with your equipment.


    and i still feel that canon is cheaper (they apply a lot of technology to most of their lens)
    So, does that mean you want to pair your future EOS 1V with a 75-300mm f/4.5-5.6 IS USM?

  14. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    6,405

    Default

    Originally posted by nicholas1986
    well maybe i should not even start this topic
    Should do more research 1st
    but BTW do you think that i should change to canon
    and i still feel that canon is cheaper (they apply a lot of technology to most of their lens)
    Remember, technology does not automatically equate to better pictures (though it can sometimes help achieve that picture). Don't just buy something new coz it's high tech.

    Regards
    CK

  15. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    6,405

    Default

    Originally posted by BenJR


    Yo!

    The Nikon 20-35 lens hood has a velvety lining inside, and it only sells for $25!
    There you go. Canon lens hoods are quite overpriced.

    Regards
    CK

  16. #16

    Default

    Originally posted by nicholas1986

    but BTW do you think that i should change to canon
    and i still feel that canon is cheaper (they apply a lot of technology to most of their lens)
    why does it matter if it is cheaper ????
    unless you want to spend a bundle at ONCE !

    but if you take the "normal" route, you'll learn and buy learn and g buy, it should not matter which brand is more expensive or cheaper.

    Spend just as much as you can afford. And leave some for some good books. The books serve as technical and composition pointers and not to meantion as inpiration.

    Now again back to the question of which brand is cheaper. From a different point of view. (think about when I'm going to say for a while).

    It does not matter which brand is cheaper or more expensive because every person will SPEND AS MUCH AS HE WANTS ! No matter which brand you choose, you'll just spend as much money as you're comfortable spending.


    rgs
    rueyloon
    36frames Wedding Photography - http://www.36frames.com
    rueyloon - http://www.rueyloon.com

  17. #17
    Papa Hommer
    Guests

    Angry

    Yes! You should change to a Canon then! DO your research MATE! It's the 3" behind the camera that makes the different! Not the 3" infront! Derr...

    It seems to me that you just want attention right? I mean you blame somebody else for your OWN mistake! Then you claim the whole world hates you... and you want to die?

    Well, you are still here making a fool of yourself alive and kicking....

    Come on guys! We all have our own reasons in choosing our own systems. I believe WE ALL did our researchs.... that will include features and price! But hey, if nicholas1986 can come out with topic like this one here! I believe he is here just to "show off"....

    Sure it's nice to carry around any limited edition equipment. But is he here to take pix or to show off his lens?


    To Dear nicholas1986 : Spent some money in some good photography books, if you want I believe WE all can recommand some good ones for you!

  18. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    singapore
    Posts
    431

    Default

    Originally posted by Papa Hommer
    Yes! You should change to a Canon then! DO your research MATE! It's the 3" behind the camera that makes the different! Not the 3" infront! Derr...

    It seems to me that you just want attention right? I mean you blame somebody else for your OWN mistake! Then you claim the whole world hates you... and you want to die?

    Well, you are still here making a fool of yourself alive and kicking....

    Come on guys! We all have our own reasons in choosing our own systems. I believe WE ALL did our researchs.... that will include features and price! But hey, if nicholas1986 can come out with topic like this one here! I believe he is here just to "show off"....

    Sure it's nice to carry around any limited edition equipment. But is he here to take pix or to show off his lens?


    To Dear nicholas1986 : Spent some money in some good photography books, if you want I believe WE all can recommand some good ones for you!
    well maybe i am just irritating
    cannot blame (only child)

  19. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Perth Australia
    Posts
    2,548

    Default Re: Is canon really cheaper than Nikon/ Nikon prices really high

    Originally posted by nicholas1986
    We know that USM in canon some are really very cheap. for example Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L USM i think it is only $2000 But for nikon it is 80-200mm f2.8 D ED AFS Zoom Lens cost about 2800

    And if i want to get a grey version or the nikon 80-200 i have to pay about 1000 more. it is really worth it?...for the same optics but different colour
    Nicholas,

    Camera gear is priced according to the concept that a photographer will pay and pay to account for their vanity. All manufacturers play up to this big time in their advertising. The reality is that many amateurs and quite a few wannabe professionals get caught up in brand war rubbish due to their blind allegience to what ever brand they are using. (it's a form of pe*is envy). The fact is that a good photographer with 3rd party lenses will turn out better work than a fool with all OEM pro glass.
    The Ang Moh from Hell
    Professional Photography - many are called, few are chosen!

  20. #20
    Papa Hommer
    Guests

    Thumbs up

    Well said Ian! If one were to spent more time studying on how to take better pix, we would not worry about having better gears!

    I remember during my Uni days, the "angmoh" in the photography class all uses second hand equipments and their pix ARE much better than the asian! In the class, the asian were all carrying "1st" class equipments, the "angmoh" were using 2nd hand Sigmas or some other lens. But they were producing "1st" class pixs!

    So Dear Nicholas, have you decided on what sort of photography are you interested in? Architecture? Landscape? or maybe simply in the daily life of ppl?

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •