Quote:
Originally Posted by far2000  thats a big surprise,
On another note, was watching the Uefa game last nite between united and lile, and damn was the place crowded with White walls of canon Lenses..dont think i spotted a non white lense....maybe a few Mark3 were there... |
Mark 3? The new one? No. However, if Canon is still testing it with a Mark II badge then maybe
Quote:
Originally Posted by far2000 A quick quote:
I won't enter the debate, but the partisan bikkering online over this is quite astonishing. What I will add are two comments. 1: We were unprepared for rain that day in South Georgia. We found ourselves ashore, it started to rain, and we kept shooting. None of us had anything more than a hand towl or plastic bag for protection of our equipment. There was nowhere to go for shelter, and short of leaving our cameras in their bags nothing to do except keep shooting in an extraordinary environment.
2: If there had been 45 Nikon and 5 Canons in use, rather than the other way round, I think it likely that the shoe would have been on the other foot.
I have used my Canon 1Ds and 1Ds MKII in snow stroms, dust storms, heavy rain and worse. I've never had one die. Similarly in past years with Nikon gear. On my trip to Namibia last year the front element fell off a Hasselblad lens on its third day of use. The same thing happened to a new Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L on a shoot in Costa Rica a few years ago.
Pros and ardent amateurs use their equipment in all sorts of conditions, sometimes harshly, and sometimes not. But gear does fail. Sometimes its the elements, sometimes abuse, and yes, sometimes poor craftsmanship and materials. But no one should draw any unwarrented conclusions from this report. There just arent enough facts available, and the sample was highly scewed statistically. |
I don't expect anyone here to debate this. I am very much aware that there were less Nikons in this trip. However, I must say that I truly believe that Nikon's have shown, if any, to be slightly better at being weatherproof. That is only a slight increase from that of Canon. Either way statistically it is not accurate to say that Nikon is better based on this Antarctica experience because there were far less Nikons than Canons.
Speaking about reliabitliy, and I am only echoing what I read at dpreview.com, Nikon and Canon should look very closely at these failures. You are paying sometimes in upwards of $2,000 US for this equipment and it should be robust and capable of being used in the snow and rain. Now, snow is one thing, but rain eventually there would be a line drawn.