Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 22

Thread: which is cheaper? Nikon or Canon?

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    In my own world
    Posts
    1,314

    Default which is cheaper? Nikon or Canon?

    Hi,
    been wondering for lens which brand is cheaper?
    Canon or Nikon...It seems to me that nikon is cheaper comparing spec to spec...

    And have more long range lens available....And canon is onli good at its own L series lens...The rest are just average.

    Also wondering if minolta is the most expensive and have the finest optics available out of the 3.

    Heard Dynax 7 digitalcame out with IS built in in its body..how brilliant. Y are they so slow in the SLR/DSLR market? Any1?

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

    Default

    There is no answer to this.

    Canon has stuff which are cheaper than Nikon; Nikon has stuff which is cheaper than Canon.

    Regards
    CK

  3. #3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rainman
    Hi,
    been wondering for lens which brand is cheaper?
    Canon or Nikon...It seems to me that nikon is cheaper comparing spec to spec...

    And have more long range lens available....And canon is onli good at its own L series lens...The rest are just average.

    Also wondering if minolta is the most expensive and have the finest optics available out of the 3.

    Heard Dynax 7 digitalcame out with IS built in in its body..how brilliant. Y are they so slow in the SLR/DSLR market? Any1?


  4. #4

    Default

    Matter of opinion really. Personally I find Nikon lenses helluva lot cheaper than the canon L lens range. Bodies are roughly the same price. As for Minolta, I was told recently by my friend that the Dynax 7si's features are pretty impressive. Apparently, the specs of the Dynax7si would beat that of the f5 and 1v in every aspect except frame rates. However, i find that Minolta lenses need some fair amount of improvement.

    Just some views.
    My Personal Folio (of random events and things)

  5. #5
    Moderator Clown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    3,779

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stoned
    Matter of opinion really. Personally I find Nikon lenses helluva lot cheaper than the canon L lens range. Bodies are roughly the same price. As for Minolta, I was told recently by my friend that the Dynax 7si's features are pretty impressive. Apparently, the specs of the Dynax7si would beat that of the f5 and 1v in every aspect except frame rates. However, i find that Minolta lenses need some fair amount of improvement.

    Just some views.
    big words... heh..

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    my heart in san francisco
    Posts
    2,233

    Default

    cheap????

    tell me what is cheap in photography?


    hope you will get your answer soon!

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,358

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by swimcraze
    cheap????

    tell me what is cheap in photography?


    hope you will get your answer soon!
    this is cheap: NOTHING
    The equipment can only bring you so far - the rest of the photographic journey is done by you.

  8. #8
    Moderator ed9119's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    10,943
    Blog Entries
    26

    Default

    care to back up these views? I might just migrate over to Nikon since their lenses are so much more affordable than their Canon counterparts and shun Minolta altogether
    shaddap and just shoot .... up close
    Walkeast

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,358

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ed9119
    care to back up these views? I might just migrate over to Nikon since their lenses are so much more affordable than their Canon counterparts and shun Minolta altogether
    as wat they said above, some nikon's are cheaper than canon's and vice versa... Its really up to u to decide... go around to CP or something with a list of your most used focal lengths and find a similar camera from both nikon and canon and add all the prices up and that'll be some judgement for you.

    Hope this helps..
    The equipment can only bring you so far - the rest of the photographic journey is done by you.

  10. #10
    Deregistered
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    509

    Default

    Why don't you just do some research? Go to an online shop like B&H and do your own comparing.

    I cribbed these prices from B&H and did a spot of comparing myself. These are equivalent Canon and Nikons which most working pros would be carrying around.

    Canon 50/1.4: USD$294.95
    Nikon 50/1.4D AF: USD $264.95
    (Note: have compared these two lens - Nikon has slightly better build quality but it is NOT an AF-S lens so focus is SLOW!)

    Canon 28-135 F/3.5-5.6 IS: USD$394.95
    Nikon 24-120 F/3.5-5.6 ED-IF AF-S VR: USD$509.95
    (Note: the Nikon has ED glass which accounts for the disparity)

    Canon 16-35 F/2.8L: USD$1319.95
    Nikon 17-35 F/2.8 ED-IF: USD$1349.95

    Canon 24-70 F/2.8L: USD$1149.95
    Nikon 28-70 F/2.8 AF-S ED-IF: USD$1329.95
    (Note: have compared these two lens. Nikon appears better built, but Canon focuses faster)

    Canon 100-400 F/4.5-5.6L IS: USD$1339.95
    Nikon 80-400 F/4.5-5.6 ED AFS VR: USD$1329.95

    Canon 70-200 F/2.8L IS: USD$1599.95
    Nikon 70-200 F/2.8 VR ED-IF AF-S: USD$1449.95
    (Note: have compared these two lens. Canon appears better built)

    Canon 300 F/2.8L IS: USD$3899.95
    Nikon 300 F/2.8 ED-IF AF-S: USD$3599.95
    (Note: the Nikon lens has no VR)

    Cost for all the above Canon lenses: $9999.65
    Cost for all the above Nikon lenses: $9834.65

    So there you have it. Nikon slightly cheaper overall - works out to be 1.65% cheaper across this selection of lenses anyway. I may as well declare that I am a Canon shooter before anyone accuses me of bias.
    Last edited by Amfibius; 4th July 2004 at 07:14 PM.

  11. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Amfibius
    Why don't you just do some research? Go to an online shop like B&H and do your own comparing.

    I cribbed these prices from B&H and did a spot of comparing myself. These are equivalent Canon and Nikons which most working pros would be carrying around.

    Canon 50/1.4: USD$294.95
    Nikon 50/1.4D AF: USD $264.95
    (Note: have compared these two lens - Nikon has slightly better build quality but performance appears to be the same)

    Canon 28-135 F/3.5-5.6 IS: USD$394.95
    Nikon 24-120 F/3.5-5.6 ED-IF AF-S VR: USD$509.95
    (Note: the Nikon has ED glass which accounts for the disparity)

    Canon 16-35 F/2.8L: USD$1319.95
    Nikon 17-35 F/2.8 ED-IF: USD$1349.95

    Canon 24-70 F/2.8L: USD$1149.95
    Nikon 28-70 F/2.8 AF-S ED-IF: USD$1329.95
    (Note: have compared these two lens. Nikon appears better built, but Canon focuses faster)

    Canon 100-400 F/4.5-5.6L IS: USD$1339.95
    Nikon 80-400 F/4.5-5.6 ED AFS VR: USD$1329.95

    Canon 70-200 F/2.8L IS: USD$1599.95
    Nikon 70-200 F/2.8 VR ED-IF AF-S: USD$1449.95
    (Note: have compared these two lens. Canon appears better built)

    Canon 300 F/2.8L IS: USD$3899.95
    Nikon 300 F/2.8 ED-IF AF-S: USD$3599.95
    (Note: the Nikon lens has no VR)

    Cost for all the above Canon lenses: $9999.65
    Cost for all the above Nikon lenses: $9834.65

    So there you have it. Nikon slightly cheaper overall - works out to be 1.65% cheaper across this selection of lenses anyway. I may as well declare that I am a Canon shooter before anyone accuses me of bias.

  12. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rainman
    Hi,
    been wondering for lens which brand is cheaper?
    Canon or Nikon...It seems to me that nikon is cheaper comparing spec to spec...
    Really, does less than $200 mean that much to you when u decide to spend $10,000 ?
    Nothing's cheap.

  13. #13
    Deregistered
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Planet Nikon
    Posts
    21,905

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Amfibius
    Canon 50/1.4: USD$294.95
    Nikon 50/1.4D AF: USD $264.95
    (Note: have compared these two lens - Nikon has slightly better build quality but performance appears to be the same)
    Frankly, methinks pros won't carry a 1.4 around just because it's 1.4, and pros normally won't carry a 50mm, perhaps 85 1.4.

    Quote Originally Posted by Amfibius
    Canon 24-70 F/2.8L: USD$1149.95
    Nikon 28-70 F/2.8 AF-S ED-IF: USD$1329.95
    (Note: have compared these two lens. Nikon appears better built, but Canon focuses faster)
    Not really, but let's not go into tech & specs.


    [quote=Amfibius]
    Canon 70-200 F/2.8L IS: USD$1599.95
    Nikon 70-200 F/2.8 VR ED-IF AF-S: USD$1449.95
    (Note: have compared these two lens. Canon appears better built) ]/quote]Not really... once again, comparing between the two, which one is lighter? hehe...

    Quote Originally Posted by amfibius
    Canon 300 F/2.8L IS: USD$3899.95
    Nikon 300 F/2.8 ED-IF AF-S: USD$3599.95
    (Note: the Nikon lens has no VR)
    Why'd u want a big mama with VR? I don't understand, why'd you want to handheld, hmmm 500 VR, 600 VR, 800 VR... useless IMHO.

    Quote Originally Posted by amfibius
    Cost for all the above Canon lenses: $9999.65
    Cost for all the above Nikon lenses: $9834.65

    So there you have it. Nikon slightly cheaper overall - works out to be 1.65% cheaper across this selection of lenses anyway. I may as well declare that I am a Canon shooter before anyone accuses me of bias.
    Nah... it's not the cost of the items that makes one decide on a system, if the person selects based on costs, that person doesn't know what he/she wants and will just opt for any system that's cheap.

  14. #14

    Default

    Your camera gears are not going to be cheaper than your expectations.

  15. #15

    Default nail it down, dude =)

    yo dude..maybe it helps betetr if u nail down what u intend to buy then we give u suggestions and compare prices from there. rather than just ask a vague question like that =)

  16. #16

    Default

    I think Amfibius guideline is pretty good there... I mean, how do you expect a newbies to know what he/she wants? prehaps just an idea 'I wanna learn D-SLR'... dadadadada...

    I've picked up Canon... cos the proximity is just there... price is right to begin with and there I am... ( wallet all flatted... )

    Still having doubts rainman? flip a coin... wua hahaha... (kidding)

    go here for list of SLR Lens guide...

    http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?t=38677

    and prehaps you will spark with something?... or?... go

    http://www.usa.canon.com/eflenses

    for canon... as for Nikon... I have no idea, Nikonians wanna share a bit here?

  17. #17

    Default

    Quick answer: neither system is cheaper.

    Cheeky answer: scrape N and C and go for pinhole photography.

    Pragmatic answer: A particular system will be "cheaper" if all your other friends are using that system. Can share equipment mah...

  18. #18
    Deregistered
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    509

    Default

    espn, you miss the point. The original poster wanted to know which lens system is cheaper - Canon or Nikon. I made my point by comparing prices from a well-known online retailer. Where there is a price disparity, I tried to account for it. Some individual lenses on Nikon and Canon's lineup are superior to their "counterpart" - this is reflected in the price.

    I am not here to argue whether or not long lenses need image stabilisation or not. The answer seems to be "yes" because you still get vibrations even when mounted on a tripod. And BTW, I have tried handholding a 300mm F/2.8 IS:



    Taken at ISO 3200, F/2.8, 1/125 second (i.e 1.5 stops faster than what they say you can safely handhold). I was not leaning against anything - I was amazed at what IS on this lens can deliver!

  19. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rainman
    Also wondering if minolta is the most expensive and have the finest optics available out of the 3.
    Least expensive of the 3 for most lens. Some Minolta lens have the best optics among the 3. Can check some sites up like www.photozone.de for lens ratings.

    Quote Originally Posted by rainman
    Heard Dynax 7 digitalcame out with IS built in in its body..how brilliant. Y are they so slow in the SLR/DSLR market? Any1?
    Ya. Been waiting for it for years now. Hope they are just waiting and looking at market movement before making a DSLR that's going to be revolutionary.

    Cheers!

  20. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Hong Kong, Pokfulam
    Posts
    1,157

    Default

    [QUOTE=espn]
    Why'd u want a big mama with VR? I don't understand, why'd you want to handheld, hmmm 500 VR, 600 VR, 800 VR... useless IMHO.

    QUOTE]

    some folks do shoot using those lenses on a monopod.. and having a monopod doesn't mean it's that steady, so i guess every bit of VR/IS counts..
    Canon 300D, 30D, 5D. 17-40 f4 L, 24-105 f4 L, 70-200 f2.8 L IS

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
  •