Canon/Nikon

dylansalt · 10-25-2009, 02:51 AM

Hi

I have noticed that most Pentaxian's when choosing another brand move over to Canon more than Nikon e.g 20D to 40D/50D not the Nikon D90

Why?

Secondly when moving over to FF the choice seems more in favor of the Canon 5D MK11 over the Nikon D700

As an all round photographic tool (not withstanding its lack of video) the Nikon D700, in my mind seems to be the more advanced of the two - so why is the choice still predominately Canon.

As I am now contemplating the FF, have handled both FF's - it would be good to hear from those that have actually made these decisions already.

Regards

Dylan

Peter Zack · 10-25-2009, 03:23 AM

If I were to take a first guess, those that like to shoot Taks can keep thier lens and migrate or shot dual systems.

Samsungian · 10-25-2009, 06:15 AM

I picked Canon first. When I bought my 5D Classic Nikon only offered D3. 5D was less than half the cost of D3. So both my 5D Classics cost less than one D3 at that point in time. Plus with simple adapters I can adapt many nikon lenses to eos mount from day one F Mount: 1959. Later when D700 launched and then shed price quickly I bought one also to drive their 14-24mm 2.8 and drive my old Ai and AiS lenses. I've owned and used Non Ai, Ai and AiS glass ever since I bought a very rare Canon made Nikon F lensmount adapter to Canon's older FD Mount, back in early 1990's. Its an adapter canon made in 1969-1972 and offered again in 1980-1981. Canon stopped offering FD items after Christmas Season 1995 dealer sheets published though one could still buy the FD remainders brand new with factory warranty from B&H thru 2003.

Hard to believe but I had an extreme bias against Canon Eos. Buying into Digital K Mount in 2005 and comparing lens availability and assessory specs slowly made me embrace the canon eos brand I thought I'd never buy into let alone read about. Canon had affordable full frame glass and Pentax had discontinued theirs. I was one of those whom Canon abandoned, FD System users. I was certain I'd never buy into eos but owning pentax softened my anti canon bias. I'd make price comparisions like Pentax FA 80-200mm f2.8 very used condition sold for more than brand new 70-200mm 2.8 IS. This is no longer true, but for me its true as I deeply bought into eos in 2008 before the hefty price increases.

That said I like D700 also. But Nikon's better lenses are still more expensive than canon counterparts. I paid $1459 for my 70-200mm 2.8 IS and the new Nikon VR II version is $2400 and in great demand as their VRI vignetted badly and it really needed an overdue design upgrade.

Thesedays D700 is a bit less than 5D Mark II. Like $2449 versus $2699. 5D Mark II has not dropped one cent in one year off list price. I got my D700 for $2319 and since then it went up $130 but its issue price was $3,000 so its still discounted off launch price.

I like owning both Canon & Nikon Full Frame Systems. I've read of too many Canikon System jumpers over the years. Owning both mounts gives me the advantage to build out a compatible dual brand kit instead of regreting lenses I sold off during brand switching. Either is a great choice for full frame.

nostatic · 10-25-2009, 10:24 AM

I knew I could trust Samsungian to do the cost analysis for me, so I'll focus on usability and other issues. He always saves me work

When I decided to go FF, I had some very clear objectives. First was good hi iso as I shoot low available light a lot. Second was the ability to crop and still print large. Unfortunately those both favor different choices (D700 for first, 5D2 for the second).

So, then it comes down to individual choice. Ergonomics are important to me, and I hand carry for long periods so the body has to feel right in my hands. I found that the D700 to feel more solid, but there is a ridge in the finger tip area that I don't really like. Some aspects of the buttons and menus I don't care for on the D700, but nobody gets this perfect. I wasn't a fan of Canon's approach at first.

I shot both the D700 and 5D2 a couple of times at my local shop along with my K20d for comparison. I then took the files home and pixel peeped to my hearts content, and performed some of what would be typical PP.

Then you have to consider what glass you're likely to want to shoot. With Pentax I liked fast primes, but frankly neither Cannon or Nikon has anything like the ltd primes. But by contrast some of their zooms are pretty amazing, and there are some incredible primes as well. They are just bigger and more expensive (some) than Pentax. I wanted IS/VR in as many lenses as I could get as I'm used to it and shoot handheld/low light a lot. This was where Canon won imho. The "kit" 24-105/4IS is way better than the Nikon "walkaround zoom." For the 24-70, neither have IS, and the Nikon is about $500 more. Nikon also doesn't have anything like the 70-200/4 IS (relatively small/light but high quality longer zoom - like the 50-135*).

In the end, having the 5D2 feel better in my hand and the glass choices for what I wanted tipped the scales towards Canon. After I bought it I wondered if I would have been better off with the D700 which does have about an extra stop of hi iso performance and "better" AF for tracking, etc. But I don't really shoot tracking stuff, instead used to single/center point. If you read the forums, some people claim the 5D2 has "terrible" AF, and rail against Canon for it. In my experience, it is just another example of forum whining by most of the users. The extra MP of the 5D2 help a lot with cropping, and also help to equalize the hi iso issues. I can shoot 3200 without worrying, and 6400 works in a pinch.

Right now I have a few L lenses that cover most everything: 16-35/2.8L II, 24-105/4L IS, 70-200/4L IS, 135/2L, and a 50/1.4 that was under $400. Not thrilled with the 50 but it is ok for the money. The 70-200/4L IS is worth the price of admission imho...stellar lens.

cwood · 10-25-2009, 10:59 AM

Generally camera bodies are all the same. Any advantage Nikon or Canon has over the other in one regard will be made up for somewhere else by the other. Any camera system should revolve around what lenses you want to shoot. For me Canon had the better lens selection at better prices. I actually prefer several of the Nikon lenses but there were gaps in the lineup and prohibitive costs to consider. I also know people who went with Nikon ONLY because of the 200-400mm F4 lens. That is certainly something I can understand too.

Wheatfield · 10-25-2009, 11:13 AM

Nikon. As far as I'm concerned, Canon has a history of customer screwishness, and I don't trust them to not do it again.

dylansalt · 10-25-2009, 01:27 PM

Thanks for the honest replies & comments - much appreciated

Regards

Dylan

Maffer · 10-26-2009, 12:32 AM

Watch closely the ergonomics of Nikon and Canon. D700 is like K20D's body on steroids - grip has more grip to it, both cameras are started up the same way and have the AF/shutter operated in the same manner but nikon's shutter action is smooth all the way to bottom. D700's body has also a bit more height to it. Canon on the other hand has K7-like grip approach for middle-finger placement which allows more stable vertical shooting.

Without grips I would pick 5D if vertical shooting is preferred. Otherwise D700.

B Grace · 10-26-2009, 06:09 AM

I think you see different approaches to the pro market with Canon and Nikon. Nikon developed the pro-level 35mm SLR market decades ago when pros more or less picked a couple of lenses and simply went to work. Whether a person was a staffer PJ or a stringer, PJ work was always a job of keeping on the move and a person could best do that with a nice simple kit of lenses and camera bodies. If you look back through the lens lineup offered by Nikon over the decades they offered a nice entry level lens and a very nice pro level lens at each of the customary focal lengths, and that was about it.

Canon was pretty much a hobbyist's camera until the late '70s and they didn't really make much a huge impact on the pro market until well into the EOS era. It was a time of offering as many choices to as many people as possible and the fact they had Andre Agassi (the long hair version) as their spokesperson should indicate the market they were attacking.

Japanese companies being more in favor of evolutionary rather than revolutionary changes over time tend to result in the situation of Canon and Nikon today. Canon can't seem to fully grasp who their target pro is so you have portrait photographers shooting with white zooms and pro landscape guys shooting with 5D's. Nikon still seems focused on PJ's but their efforts in growing their amateur market have been confusing with a whole raft of 18-xxx kit zooms. And many of their decent lenses today would have never carried the Nikon name during even the '80s.

I think that today you see a lot folks buying Canon cameras because of all of those lenses they will never have the chance to use, and you see a lot of folks buying Nikon cameras such as the D3 because they believe it's the best camera for them even though their skills and the work they do wouldn't surpass the abilities of a D90. In both cases, FF is cool but I bet they still don't see thousands of dollars of improvements in their photos.

Perhaps it is Pentax that has been most successful in maintaining their target market which in my opinion is the hobbyist. Perhaps if Minolta hadn't been swallowed by Sony they too would offer nice compact primes for the hobbyist.

Samsungian · 10-26-2009, 08:46 AM

Nov 1970 was the date F-1 rolled off Canon production lines.

Most say F-1 launched in "1971"

F-1 is pro spec body. It came with an array of pro spec lenses like 300mm 2.8 Flourite, 500mm 5.6 Flourite, ect. F-1 was designed to answer 1959-1970 Nikon F pro market system. It launched with multiple finders, focus screens. No roadmap of things to come as it launched all at once. A complete system from day one that got built upon over the two decades.

Classic Modern SLRs - Canon F-1, 1971

By the late 1970's F-1 had been improved upon. But it was still the brass and gears mechanical wonder camera it started as. In 1981 a second generation electronic hybrid F-1 emerged and it stayed in production thru 1994.

Heres a little link to a (((few))) of the first generation FD Mount lenses:

Canon FD lenses - Main Index Page

Canon FD System led by its F-1 probody was 6 years old when pentax dropped screw mount and launched its k-mount system.

Originally posted by B Grace

Canon was pretty much a hobbyist's camera until the late '70s and they didn't really make much a huge impact on the pro market until well into the EOS era. It was a time of offering as many choices to as many people as possible and the fact they had Andre Agassi (the long hair version) as their spokesperson should indicate the market they were attacking.

Perhaps it is Pentax that has been most successful in maintaining their target market which in my opinion is the hobbyist. Perhaps if Minolta hadn't been swallowed by Sony they too would offer nice compact primes for the hobbyist.

John Newcomb predated either Agassi, hairy or hairless, in the role of:

Tennis Pro Canon Ad Spokesman

heatherslightbox · 10-26-2009, 05:44 PM

A lot of the reason that I went with Canon was for the lenses. I tend to be more of a zoom gal and like the idea of constant aperture zooms, but don't have a real need for constant 2.8 lenses. Canon fills that want with a variety of zooms from 17-200mm. For the record, I have 2 of those: the 24-105/4 IS and the 70-200/4 IS, both which are fabulous lenses.

Another reason that I went with Canon is that I've got the option to upgrade to FF once I've got the funds. At some point, I'm planning on picking up either a 5D (classic) or if I have the patience to save up for a while longer, a 5DMkII; if I do get the MkII, I think I'll be set with a camera that I'll be able to use for a long time to come.

I'm not sure exactly why it is, but since switching to Canon, but my LBA symptoms have decreased significantly.

Heather

Blue · 10-26-2009, 06:50 PM

Originally posted by hwblanks

. . .
I'm not sure exactly why it is, but since switching to Canon, but my LBA symptoms have decreased significantly.

Heather

I bet the price of L glass had a little bit to do with that.

jsherman999 · 10-26-2009, 06:50 PM

.

I wanted a 2nd body that provided 1) Faster AF, especially in low light, 2) better high-ISO performance, 3) some more lenses not available in K-mount to keep my LBA fires burning.

D90 fit the bill. Plus, I handled and shot with both the Canon 40D and the D90, and the D90 was much more enjoyable to shoot with for some reason, and it gave better high-ISO performance than than the 40D.

And if I was going to go FF, it was going to be the D700 (or it's probable replacement.)

The D90 is a great body to team with the K20D - two cost-effective leaders in APS-C, each with their own strengths.

jsherman999 · 10-26-2009, 06:54 PM

Originally posted by hwblanks:

..I'm not sure exactly why it is, but since switching to Canon, but my LBA symptoms have decreased significantly..

.

Heather, are there any Canon forums that you hang out in? If not, that may be part of the reason - if you aren't constantly reading about that next great lens, LBA dissipates.

jct us101 · 10-26-2009, 09:41 PM

I actually started out with Canon before going to Pentax. Now I'm back at Canon.

10-25-2009, 02:51 AM	#1
dylansalt Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Durban, South Africa Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,052	Canon/Nikon Hi I have noticed that most Pentaxian's when choosing another brand move over to Canon more than Nikon e.g 20D to 40D/50D not the Nikon D90 Why? Secondly when moving over to FF the choice seems more in favor of the Canon 5D MK11 over the Nikon D700 As an all round photographic tool (not withstanding its lack of video) the Nikon D700, in my mind seems to be the more advanced of the two - so why is the choice still predominately Canon. As I am now contemplating the FF, have handled both FF's - it would be good to hear from those that have actually made these decisions already. Regards Dylan

10-25-2009, 06:15 AM	#3
Samsungian Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Colorado USA Posts: 1,337	I picked Canon first I picked Canon first. When I bought my 5D Classic Nikon only offered D3. 5D was less than half the cost of D3. So both my 5D Classics cost less than one D3 at that point in time. Plus with simple adapters I can adapt many nikon lenses to eos mount from day one F Mount: 1959. Later when D700 launched and then shed price quickly I bought one also to drive their 14-24mm 2.8 and drive my old Ai and AiS lenses. I've owned and used Non Ai, Ai and AiS glass ever since I bought a very rare Canon made Nikon F lensmount adapter to Canon's older FD Mount, back in early 1990's. Its an adapter canon made in 1969-1972 and offered again in 1980-1981. Canon stopped offering FD items after Christmas Season 1995 dealer sheets published though one could still buy the FD remainders brand new with factory warranty from B&H thru 2003. Hard to believe but I had an extreme bias against Canon Eos. Buying into Digital K Mount in 2005 and comparing lens availability and assessory specs slowly made me embrace the canon eos brand I thought I'd never buy into let alone read about. Canon had affordable full frame glass and Pentax had discontinued theirs. I was one of those whom Canon abandoned, FD System users. I was certain I'd never buy into eos but owning pentax softened my anti canon bias. I'd make price comparisions like Pentax FA 80-200mm f2.8 very used condition sold for more than brand new 70-200mm 2.8 IS. This is no longer true, but for me its true as I deeply bought into eos in 2008 before the hefty price increases. That said I like D700 also. But Nikon's better lenses are still more expensive than canon counterparts. I paid $1459 for my 70-200mm 2.8 IS and the new Nikon VR II version is $2400 and in great demand as their VRI vignetted badly and it really needed an overdue design upgrade. Thesedays D700 is a bit less than 5D Mark II. Like $2449 versus $2699. 5D Mark II has not dropped one cent in one year off list price. I got my D700 for $2319 and since then it went up $130 but its issue price was $3,000 so its still discounted off launch price. I like owning both Canon & Nikon Full Frame Systems. I've read of too many Canikon System jumpers over the years. Owning both mounts gives me the advantage to build out a compatible dual brand kit instead of regreting lenses I sold off during brand switching. Either is a great choice for full frame. Last edited by Samsungian; 10-25-2009 at 06:25 AM.

10-26-2009, 08:46 AM	#10
Samsungian Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Colorado USA Posts: 1,337	Nov 1970 was the date F-1 rolled off Canon production lines Nov 1970 was the date F-1 rolled off Canon production lines. Most say F-1 launched in "1971" F-1 is pro spec body. It came with an array of pro spec lenses like 300mm 2.8 Flourite, 500mm 5.6 Flourite, ect. F-1 was designed to answer 1959-1970 Nikon F pro market system. It launched with multiple finders, focus screens. No roadmap of things to come as it launched all at once. A complete system from day one that got built upon over the two decades. Classic Modern SLRs - Canon F-1, 1971 By the late 1970's F-1 had been improved upon. But it was still the brass and gears mechanical wonder camera it started as. In 1981 a second generation electronic hybrid F-1 emerged and it stayed in production thru 1994. Heres a little link to a (((few))) of the first generation FD Mount lenses: Canon FD lenses - Main Index Page Canon FD System led by its F-1 probody was 6 years old when pentax dropped screw mount and launched its k-mount system. Originally posted by B Grace Canon was pretty much a hobbyist's camera until the late '70s and they didn't really make much a huge impact on the pro market until well into the EOS era. It was a time of offering as many choices to as many people as possible and the fact they had Andre Agassi (the long hair version) as their spokesperson should indicate the market they were attacking. Perhaps it is Pentax that has been most successful in maintaining their target market which in my opinion is the hobbyist. Perhaps if Minolta hadn't been swallowed by Sony they too would offer nice compact primes for the hobbyist. John Newcomb predated either Agassi, hairy or hairless, in the role of: Tennis Pro Canon Ad Spokesman Last edited by Samsungian; 10-26-2009 at 12:00 PM.

10-26-2009, 06:50 PM	#13
jsherman999 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,237	Nikon D90 . I wanted a 2nd body that provided 1) Faster AF, especially in low light, 2) better high-ISO performance, 3) some more lenses not available in K-mount to keep my LBA fires burning. D90 fit the bill. Plus, I handled and shot with both the Canon 40D and the D90, and the D90 was much more enjoyable to shoot with for some reason, and it gave better high-ISO performance than than the 40D. And if I was going to go FF, it was going to be the D700 (or it's probable replacement.) The D90 is a great body to team with the K20D - two cost-effective leaders in APS-C, each with their own strengths.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Pentax or canon nikon	garyk	Pentax DSLR Discussion	19	06-25-2010 08:48 AM
Nikon or Canon?	jolee1990	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	22	02-25-2010 12:55 PM
Nikon vs Canon	Hey Elwood	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	104	09-18-2009 02:57 AM
If I were a Nikon or Canon user...	Buddha Jones	Pentax News and Rumors	135	01-20-2008 06:36 AM
Canon or Nikon?	benjikan	Photographic Technique	26	04-10-2007 10:25 PM

10-25-2009, 03:23 AM	#2
Peter Zack Pentaxian Moderator Emeritus Join Date: May 2007 Location: Edmonton Alberta, Canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 10,643	If I were to take a first guess, those that like to shoot Taks can keep thier lens and migrate or shot dual systems.

10-25-2009, 10:24 AM	#4
nostatic Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: socal Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,575	I knew I could trust Samsungian to do the cost analysis for me, so I'll focus on usability and other issues. He always saves me work When I decided to go FF, I had some very clear objectives. First was good hi iso as I shoot low available light a lot. Second was the ability to crop and still print large. Unfortunately those both favor different choices (D700 for first, 5D2 for the second). So, then it comes down to individual choice. Ergonomics are important to me, and I hand carry for long periods so the body has to feel right in my hands. I found that the D700 to feel more solid, but there is a ridge in the finger tip area that I don't really like. Some aspects of the buttons and menus I don't care for on the D700, but nobody gets this perfect. I wasn't a fan of Canon's approach at first. I shot both the D700 and 5D2 a couple of times at my local shop along with my K20d for comparison. I then took the files home and pixel peeped to my hearts content, and performed some of what would be typical PP. Then you have to consider what glass you're likely to want to shoot. With Pentax I liked fast primes, but frankly neither Cannon or Nikon has anything like the ltd primes. But by contrast some of their zooms are pretty amazing, and there are some incredible primes as well. They are just bigger and more expensive (some) than Pentax. I wanted IS/VR in as many lenses as I could get as I'm used to it and shoot handheld/low light a lot. This was where Canon won imho. The "kit" 24-105/4IS is way better than the Nikon "walkaround zoom." For the 24-70, neither have IS, and the Nikon is about $500 more. Nikon also doesn't have anything like the 70-200/4 IS (relatively small/light but high quality longer zoom - like the 50-135*). In the end, having the 5D2 feel better in my hand and the glass choices for what I wanted tipped the scales towards Canon. After I bought it I wondered if I would have been better off with the D700 which does have about an extra stop of hi iso performance and "better" AF for tracking, etc. But I don't really shoot tracking stuff, instead used to single/center point. If you read the forums, some people claim the 5D2 has "terrible" AF, and rail against Canon for it. In my experience, it is just another example of forum whining by most of the users. The extra MP of the 5D2 help a lot with cropping, and also help to equalize the hi iso issues. I can shoot 3200 without worrying, and 6400 works in a pinch. Right now I have a few L lenses that cover most everything: 16-35/2.8L II, 24-105/4L IS, 70-200/4L IS, 135/2L, and a 50/1.4 that was under $400. Not thrilled with the 50 but it is ok for the money. The 70-200/4L IS is worth the price of admission imho...stellar lens.

10-25-2009, 10:59 AM	#5
cwood Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: California Posts: 851	Generally camera bodies are all the same. Any advantage Nikon or Canon has over the other in one regard will be made up for somewhere else by the other. Any camera system should revolve around what lenses you want to shoot. For me Canon had the better lens selection at better prices. I actually prefer several of the Nikon lenses but there were gaps in the lineup and prohibitive costs to consider. I also know people who went with Nikon ONLY because of the 200-400mm F4 lens. That is certainly something I can understand too.

10-25-2009, 11:13 AM	#6
Wheatfield Moderator Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: The wheatfields of Canada Posts: 15,986	Nikon. As far as I'm concerned, Canon has a history of customer screwishness, and I don't trust them to not do it again.

10-25-2009, 01:27 PM	#7
dylansalt Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Durban, South Africa Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,052 Original Poster	Thanks for the honest replies & comments - much appreciated Regards Dylan

10-26-2009, 12:32 AM	#8
Maffer Inactive Account Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Finland Photos: Gallery Posts: 308	Watch closely the ergonomics of Nikon and Canon. D700 is like K20D's body on steroids - grip has more grip to it, both cameras are started up the same way and have the AF/shutter operated in the same manner but nikon's shutter action is smooth all the way to bottom. D700's body has also a bit more height to it. Canon on the other hand has K7-like grip approach for middle-finger placement which allows more stable vertical shooting. Without grips I would pick 5D if vertical shooting is preferred. Otherwise D700.

10-26-2009, 06:09 AM	#9
B Grace Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Western Missouri Posts: 429	I think you see different approaches to the pro market with Canon and Nikon. Nikon developed the pro-level 35mm SLR market decades ago when pros more or less picked a couple of lenses and simply went to work. Whether a person was a staffer PJ or a stringer, PJ work was always a job of keeping on the move and a person could best do that with a nice simple kit of lenses and camera bodies. If you look back through the lens lineup offered by Nikon over the decades they offered a nice entry level lens and a very nice pro level lens at each of the customary focal lengths, and that was about it. Canon was pretty much a hobbyist's camera until the late '70s and they didn't really make much a huge impact on the pro market until well into the EOS era. It was a time of offering as many choices to as many people as possible and the fact they had Andre Agassi (the long hair version) as their spokesperson should indicate the market they were attacking. Japanese companies being more in favor of evolutionary rather than revolutionary changes over time tend to result in the situation of Canon and Nikon today. Canon can't seem to fully grasp who their target pro is so you have portrait photographers shooting with white zooms and pro landscape guys shooting with 5D's. Nikon still seems focused on PJ's but their efforts in growing their amateur market have been confusing with a whole raft of 18-xxx kit zooms. And many of their decent lenses today would have never carried the Nikon name during even the '80s. I think that today you see a lot folks buying Canon cameras because of all of those lenses they will never have the chance to use, and you see a lot of folks buying Nikon cameras such as the D3 because they believe it's the best camera for them even though their skills and the work they do wouldn't surpass the abilities of a D90. In both cases, FF is cool but I bet they still don't see thousands of dollars of improvements in their photos. Perhaps it is Pentax that has been most successful in maintaining their target market which in my opinion is the hobbyist. Perhaps if Minolta hadn't been swallowed by Sony they too would offer nice compact primes for the hobbyist.

10-26-2009, 05:44 PM	#11
heatherslightbox Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Gainesville, FL Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,599	A lot of the reason that I went with Canon was for the lenses. I tend to be more of a zoom gal and like the idea of constant aperture zooms, but don't have a real need for constant 2.8 lenses. Canon fills that want with a variety of zooms from 17-200mm. For the record, I have 2 of those: the 24-105/4 IS and the 70-200/4 IS, both which are fabulous lenses. Another reason that I went with Canon is that I've got the option to upgrade to FF once I've got the funds. At some point, I'm planning on picking up either a 5D (classic) or if I have the patience to save up for a while longer, a 5DMkII; if I do get the MkII, I think I'll be set with a camera that I'll be able to use for a long time to come. I'm not sure exactly why it is, but since switching to Canon, but my LBA symptoms have decreased significantly. Heather

10-26-2009, 06:50 PM	#12
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by hwblanks . . . I'm not sure exactly why it is, but since switching to Canon, but my LBA symptoms have decreased significantly. Heather I bet the price of L glass had a little bit to do with that.

10-26-2009, 06:54 PM	#14
jsherman999 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,237	Originally posted by hwblanks: ..I'm not sure exactly why it is, but since switching to Canon, but my LBA symptoms have decreased significantly.. . Heather, are there any Canon forums that you hang out in? If not, that may be part of the reason - if you aren't constantly reading about that next great lens, LBA dissipates.

10-26-2009, 09:41 PM	#15
jct us101 Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Rohnert Park, CA Posts: 3,793	I actually started out with Canon before going to Pentax. Now I'm back at Canon.