I ended the previous part of the story with some very strong words. I basically accused Canon of ‘handicapping’ and ‘under-specifying’ their products on purpose. Not only that, I went as far as to call the 5D Mark II and 50D disappointments, and even found a way to discredit the 18-200mm IS. And all this without justification. Oh dear, I might be turning into Jeremy Clarkson.

Now since I’m already on the verge of getting on the nerves of all Canon photographers, I might as well go all out and do this. The following is my explanation:

5D Mark II

It has all the makings of an awesome camera. It even has lineage. In fact, for the record, it is an amazing piece of photographic equipment. However, how can Canon justify the AF system, a 3 year old hand-me-down from the original 5D. Even the 40D and 50D has arguably better AF. You want to know why they didn’t update it? Don’t believe the press release when they say it’s because it’s more reliable. Wrong. It’s usable. But the reason is so that WHEN they finally get to developing a NEW AF system, they can put it in the 1D Mark IV and 1Ds Mark IV and charge you a few more thousand bucks for it.

Also, if you compare this camera to the old 5D, nothing really photographic has changed. Oh yes, there’s ISO 25600 (good job and equals Nikon’s achievements), there’s 21 MP (really, is this absolutely necessary? – think 30MB RAW files), and the fantastic 1080p HD video. But is there really anything else? Not really. There are little bits here and there but it’s very much to match the market standards. So what you are paying for is the extra MP and the HD video in comparison to its competitors. And until recently HD video without manual control.

You know what my theory is on this delay in manual control? Canon was forced to play their hand because the D700 was released. You see, prior to the D700, Canon had the enthusiast full frame market all to itself. No competition. No fight. That’s why the old 5D stayed in the product line for 3 YEARS. That’s a lifetime in the world of technology. If not for the D700, Canon would have gladly waited till 2009 to get the 5D Mark II out. Instead, they released it before the end of 2008. So I believe we have to thank Nikon for this.

50D

Again Canon was being reactive rather than being proactive. Reactive to what, you say? Why, the D300 of course. You see, within a few days of Canon releasing the 40D, Nikon launched the D3 and D300. What shocked the world was that the D300 was essentially a D3 (on par with Canon’s 1D series = costing upwards of RM13,000) with an APS-C sensor. It had all the bells and whistles, a sharper screen, 51 point pro-level AF, the Nikon CLS built in and the list goes on. Basically the kitchen sink. And the asking price? About RM1500 more than the Canon 40D. Now you see, prior to the 40D, the xxD series was on a 1 and a half year cycle. Meaning you’d have to wait 18 months for the 50D. However, this changed in 2008. They cut it to 12 months. That should be a good thing right? Yes and no. Canon did such a rushed job with this camera that all they really wanted was a camera that looked good on PAPER. So what did they do? Okay, 15 MP (Yay, 15MP > 12MP), ISO 12800 (Yay, ISO 12800 > ISO 6400), 3” HD LCD (Yay, 3” HD = 3”LCD). And they made it cheaper than the D300. So hands down victory right? Wrong again. The camera’s ISO 6400 and ISO 12800 are just rubbish.

And seriously, seriously, what’s the big fuss about all the megapixels? It’s like the old days of how PCs were compared for their Megahertz. Now you look at PCs and the top end ones are maybe 2.4 GHz. Wait a minute, I thought they reached 3.0 GHz years ago? Yes they did, but then Intel had to undo all the marketing they did because they had educated the consumers that MHz and GHz was everything, when it actually wasn’t. The same applies for megapixels. It does not equate to a better camera. Ever wondered why the 2 year old 8 megapixel DSLR takes better images than a brand spanking new 12 megapixel point and shoot compact camera? Food for thought.

And the other thing. ISO is just a number unless its usable and NOT noisy. It’s a bit like telling you the Proton Saga can reach a top speed of 250 km/h. But what they don’t tell you is if you reach that speed, your car will rattle itself to bits and the car engine will blow up. Canon’s 50D is absolutely noisy at ISO 12800. But they put it in for marketing purposes. Everything else about the 50D is the 40D in near duplication (which for the record, are both excellent cameras in their own right). How’s that for advancing technology? Again, who do we thank for the 50D? The Nikon D300. Maybe even the D90.

18-200mm IS

Okay, this lens is frankly a little late. But Canon delivered it. Better late than never, right? Yes, but Canon asked for more money for this lens than Nikon, and don’t even give you a lens hood or a lens pouch. Oh, and did I mention the optics are near identical in performance? They didn’t even give you manual focus override, which comes standard with the Nikon. Why? To protect the Canon L lens range. You see, if you’re a Canon user, the only time your lenses will have hoods or pouches is when it’s an L lens. Yes, that awesome 10-22mm UWA and 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens does not come with any nice extras even though they both cost about RM2500 and RM3800 respectively (which by the way, is pricier than some L lenses).

What does this scream? Purposeful market segmentation. Giving you less than the norm so that you will WANT the premium L range. Yes, some may argue that those accessories don’t affect the image. Correct. But is it really so hard to give us these small extras? Heck, Nikon’s giving it without charging extra. Isn’t there a saying which goes, ‘it’s the little things that matter’?

And actually here’s one more theory of mine. Canon didn’t really want to give you this lens. You see, they have this 28-300mm L lens which costs an arm, a leg and then some. Also, they’ve already created the 18-55 IS and 55-250 IS consumer lenses. So why did they cave in? I think by now you can see where I’m headed with this. The answer: Because the 18-200mm VR alone was moving Nikon sales by the bucket loads. And when that happens, it eats into Canon’s market share. What better way to address this than to fight fire with fire, no?

*deep breath*

Yet in spite of all that I’ve said above, we will still continue to buy Canon cameras and lenses. Why? Because they have one of the best marketing in the world of digital imaging. We immediately think of Canon as one of THE brands for cameras. And they’ve earned it. They make excellent end to end imaging solutions, from the time the image is captured, right till the actual print. They also pick better ambassadors to target the consumers (think Canon’s Maria Sharapova over Nikon’s Ashton Kutcher). They are, by far, aside from Sony, geniuses at marketing. I’ll put them as high up as I rate Apple as well (the latter is one case study every marketing student should analyze).

Actually I akin Canon and Nikon to Toyota and Honda respectively. The latest Vios used the same engine as the previous version, and only changed the external looks. The new Honda City went through an entire revamp, from the inside to the outside. This is very much like the 40D -> 50D (Vios) and the D200 -> D300 (City). One other main similarity in the rivalry, albeit in a completely different industry, is that Toyota, like Canon, are the market leaders. So they CAN rest on their laurels. The motto: “If it aint’ broken, don’t fix it” rings like a mantra to market leaders. And frankly, there’s nothing really wrong with that. They earned their right to do so. And trust me, their products have to work and succeed first, before they can earn this right. So kudos to you Toyota and Canon.

But to me, being able to see through all of this product after product, is like knowing your best friend lied to you, and isn’t apologizing for it. Instead he/she keeps covering it up with more and more stories and excuses, in hope you’ll accept that he/she didn’t intend it. And then in the end try and coax you into believing that there wasn’t a lie to begin with. I will even go as far as to say Canon makes you believe that what you have is GOOD ENOUGH, rather than giving you the BEST that you DESERVE.

I believe on that bombshell, I have gotten myself into a fair bit of trouble (please do not throw red paint at me…). But anyway, if you can see past all of what I’ve wrote, and keep your emotions in check (yes, I mean you, all you Canon users and fans), you can tell that I have already got an deeply imbued bias within me. Canon, like an ex-girlfriend, is now a memory I get very emotional about, ie. something I no longer wish to relive even if there were many great times shared. It is PERSONAL. And as such, it is hard to forgive and forget.

So to all the fence-sitters, before you go run out and buy Nikon gear just because I have thrown dirt at Canon, HOLD YOUR HORSES. I want to make this very clear. The grass is always going to be greener on the other side. And in my next part, with the recent few months of experience with Nikon on my side, I will reveal to you how my dark heart feels that Canon, like all great companies, has its strengths. Frankly, there are quite a few that can whip Nikon’s ass.

Now that I’m on the other side, I can tell you what you’ll miss if you join me on the DARK SIDE of the FORCE. Tell you these secrets, I will… hmm…

To be continued…

The Canon vs. Nikon Conundrum

Part 1 – My Personal Journey’s Backstory
Part 2 – The Feedback Letter
Part 3 – The Marketing Machine
Part 4 – The Grass Is Always Greener

PS: For the record I own a Vios, and I was very sore 6 months later when the new City came out. You see, I liked the Honda Civic, but it wasn’t within my budget. And to make matters worse the old City (no offence) is ugly. So I settled for the lesser of the two evils, ie. the dugong a.k.a. flowerhorn a.k.a. mouse. We live, we learn. The Vios is a great car though, just so happens the new City came out 6 months too late. That’s my confession. Smite me.

Now there’s a reason why I started this article with a backstory of my own photographic journey. If you actually do a stock take of the gear I owned before I made the switch, here’s what you’d have come up with:

• Canon 350D camera
• 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5
• 17-55mm f/2.8 IS
• 50mm f/1.8
• 85mm f/1.8

The glass themselves are highly rated in the Canon APS-C world. And I’m not even counting the investment in the 580EX II flash, and all kinds of other bibs and bobs I acquired along the way that were Canon specific. So in summary, I had every reason NOT to switch and just get a camera upgrade from Canon. But the fact is, I didn’t and I still switched. Albeit after a painful financial blow, and also a lot of sleep loss.

Why? Why didn’t I take the most obvious route and stick to Canon? I could perhaps consider a 2nd hand 40D, or a brand new 50D? If I wanted full frame I’d be able to choose from the classic and now legendary 3 year old Canon 5D, and also the brand spanking new HD video capable 5D Mark II. And, as popular rule of thumb applies, I’ve already got an investment of glass in Canon, so I should just stick with them. And as we all know by now, I broke that rule. Why?

The answer to that is NOT a simple one.

Now to those of you who know me well enough, I spend too much time on the Internet reading and researching on all things photography. One minute I’m scouring the 2nd hand markets over Malaysian forums, the next I’ll be spending time reading photography related articles from various Internet sources, and even analyzing MTF charts and reviews on popular photography review pages. So much so, I even compiled a whole page of links for the similarly inquisitive as I. Needless to say, I read online on photography a lot more than I photograph, and as a result I’d like to think I’m fairly informed, though I am susceptible to mad spending of my hard earned money on camera gear.

Well, in order to explain my answer, I’ll need to rewind the clock a bit. I started to get rather frustrated with Canon over their new camera releases of late 2007 and the whole of 2008. It was around this time that Nikon had sent shockwaves by announcing the D3 and D300, two fantastic cameras, just weeks after Canon played safe and released an incremental update of the 30D in the form of 40D. Canon’s aging 5D, then nearly 3 years old, was also not updated.

Ever wonder why Canon do things the way they do? I have a theory, and I will share this with you. In short, it’s called MARKETING, and the age-old saying “If it ain’t broken, don’t fix it.” There’s really nothing wrong with what they’re doing, since, they are after all the market leaders.

You see, I was in the market to ‘plan’ my camera upgrade. But in a classic case of ‘gearhead-edness’ and not spending enough time doing ACTUAL photography (yes, I am indeed guilty as charged), I got quite frustrated. Frustrated enough that in the middle of 2008, before the announcements of the Canon 50D, Nikon D90, and Canon 5D Mark II and right after the announcement of the Nikon D700, I wrote a LONG email to Canon Malaysia. I even cc-ed a copy to Chuck Westfall, which as of current date was and still is the manager of the Camera Divison Technical Information Dept of Canon U.S.A.

Here is a copy of the exact same email, unedited and unfiltered other than for some typos I only just corrected. Please note that for those whom are not into DSLR photography, or technically inclined, you may want to zoom right past this email. Also Canon lovers,  as I mentioned in my disclaimer, I warn you that this email will sting you.

Dear XXXX,

Below are my honest opinions on the Canon EOS line, and I hope you can spare a few minutes of your time to just have a read through and ponder the validity of some of the points I’m about to make.

I originally intended to send this email to the head of Canon Malaysia but am not sure how to obtain the contact of this individual. As such I have sent a copy of this email to the general email address of Canon Malaysia at Helpdesk, and also another copy to Chuck Westfall, the manager of the Camera Division Technical Information Dept of Canon U.S.A.

First and foremost, I realize that Canon is indeed a marketing giant, and as an EOS user, I can truly analyze and observe the many marketing decisions that Canon makes to ensure they ‘protect’ their own product line.

However, here are my qualms. To begin with, I believe it’s about time that some of the old prime lenses are phased out. There are some which are more than 15 years old already, and are in dire need of updating. Nowadays with digital, the chromatic aberrations are starting to become startling obvious on these lenses.

Furthermore, I do believe there isn’t a real need to have a 1.3x crop sensor that is the 1d Mk # range. There really isn’t much of a market segment that’s being created there. I really do feel that what is really needed is an update of the old 5D, and perhaps a Full Frame camera targeted at the sports photographers market segment. I believe the 1Ds Mk # series on the other hand, can retain its place as there is still a good niche market which demands for high resolutions which are close to that of the medium formats.

I’m also completely agreeable with the decision to come up with the 1000D and 450D. This opens up a new market for budget DSLRs and credit is due to those who decided on this. However I do feel a clear-cut flagship is required in the APS-C format. The 40D is starting to look like a pretender with the likes of the Nikon D300 in the market. For not much more money, there’s just so much more camera in the Nikon D300, and I wouldn’t be surprised to find a lot of Canon loyalists starting to waiver.

I also reckon that it’s time to stop resting on the laurels of the aging 5D. It’s already 3 years old, and is sorely in need of an update. This camera should already be phased out, and the blunder that was the AF problems with the 1D Mk III should perhaps be taken as an indication that it might be time to phase the APS-H line out also. The Nikon D3 easily contests with the 1D Mk III for similar money and a REAL full frame sensor. It’s no wonder that even at a major event like the Tour De France, more sports and action photographers are choosing Nikon. I will not be surprised if the trend reveals itself in full force at the Beijing Olympics 2008.

I feel that there is potential for a new market segment by releasing a TRUE flagship APS-C and also two Full Frame cameras. One a budget option like the 5D in its heyday, and one a higher spec-ed one to target the would be D3-owners. I know it’s easy for me to suggest these things, but I do feel there’s some weight to this argument.

In terms of lenses, I think it’s high time Canon did something about the 50mm range. The f/1.4 lenses sorely needs an update with frequent complaints of extremely soft imagery wide open and a dated non-ring USM. I reckon, even if the price were to be increased on the f/1.4, but a new updated version released, the sales of this lens will really start picking up. The 50mm f/1.2, with its poor track record, might also deserve a second look at.

I am also one of the many thousands of Canon users who just wish that Canon would just release a REAL 18-200 IS. Never mind if the optics aren’t 100% fantastic, or if a plastic lens mount is to be put with no real USM motor. It’s about time it gets released before more potential customers use Nikon just to access the fantastic 18-200 VR. Don’t get me wrong, the idea to have both the 18-55 IS and 55-250mm IS is an inspired one, but really, is it really that difficult for a technological giant like Canon to make one? In fact, if it’s good enough, perhaps even the 17-85mm, which isn’t all that well accepted due to its optical flaws can be phased out slowly.

I do believe also that there’s room for Canon to start pioneering ideas, and perhaps the niche market segment that the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 has created for the APS-C revolution. If Canon were to release their own version, be it an EF-S one, a huge demand would also be created. Perhaps this is against the marketing strategy of Canon (protecting the L lens range or what not), but there clearly is a demand for this lens, the numbers don’t lie. It’s no use trying to rely on the dated and aging 28mm 1.8.

And then there’s the L lenses. I think it’s about time that Canon releases a 24-70mm f/2.8 IS. The pros have been crying for it, and although it would be a premium product, it would be a perfect reply to the double whammy of the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 and the 24-70mm f/2.8 (the latter of which has tested to be a fantastic optic end-to-end). Also with major reviewers commenting on the sharpness (or rather the lack of) on the premium 70-200 f/2.8 IS, I do believe the pro market deserves more attention and an update to what is surely a workhorse lens that will serve to strengthen instead of weakening Canon’s current lineup. I know this is possible, as Canon’s own 70-200 f/4.0 IS is one of their sharpest to date, so what’s stopping the release of a new 70-200 f/2.8 IS?

I really have to stress that the small things that a company like Nikon pays attention to really does make a difference. Take for instance their in camera viewfinder gridlines, and huge viewfinders (on a enthusiast level camera like the D80). It doesn’t cost too much more for small things like those I’m sure, but Canon just refuses to give the photographers the best camera they can get. I do strongly believe that Canon is a technological powerhouse, but that seems like something left in the past. They’re rested on their laurels for too long, and I think the facts speak for themselves, that with the release of Nikon’s pro D3, D300 and now the D700, canon’s professional line will start being massacred. Evidence of the entire USA today staff changing their gear, and major event photographers switching over, should already be enough to prove my point.

I’m sure that there are Canon pros who swear by the 1D and 1Ds range, but from an enthusiast’s point of view, I’d rather swear by the D3. It costs so much less than a 1.3x cropped 1D series camera and a heck lot less than a 1Ds series camera. And again, by winning so much critical acclaim, I do believe the pros are speaking for themselves. That camera is so feature loaded it puts the canon flagships to shame. I for one, feel that high ISO performance is more important than keeping the megapixel count. There’s so much more versatility to a camera capable of High ISO rather than a 24MP one. What’s the use of all those megapixels if one can’t even get the shot in low light to begin with?

Speaking of light, then there is the Flash system. ‘Strobist’ is by far one of the fastest growing online communities in the photography world. And their flash of choice? The Nikon SB800, which is already legendary for its feature set and for less money than the 580EX II. Now with the announcement of the SB900, the 580EX II truly just looks like a glorified smack. I really do feel that a cheaper level featured flash is required below the overpriced 430EX. Perhaps keeping the 430EX in the lineup in spite of the 430EX II might be a good idea to allow Canon users to enjoy flash photography. And truthfully, is it really so difficult to have the SU-4 functionality that the SB800 doesn’t charge a single cent more for?

Although I have credited the decision to have the 1000D and 450D, everything else I’ve mentioned thereafter reveals a severe gap. I strongly believe that after 1 year or so of using those cameras, those camera owners will start feeling the disgruntlement that I am feeling now.

Times are changing. And for the giant that Canon is, they are really reacting too slowly. It’s time for some changes, resting on the laurels of former glory won’t do. The competition waits for nobody. A storm’s brewing, and not all of us (myself included) will want to stand with them to weather it out. So this is my plea, before I make the right decision of a photography enthusiast and leave the Canon EOS line for good.

Passionate for the light, and no longer delighted,
Woody Ang

Now if you actually bother to copy and paste this entire email, it will be nearly 1600 words long and take up 3 whole pages in Microsoft Word. This email for me, about one year ago from today, summed up in a polite and curt way every thing I felt was wrong with Canon. Unfortunately since this email, very little has changed in the world of Canon. Mind you, I gave them credit in this email, and even gave constructive suggestions, in spite of the negative vibes emanating.

Some enthusiasts and photographers in-the-know may say that since the time of my email, there’s been the 50D and 5D Mark II. Not to mention, they’ve also answered one of my requests: a 18-200mm IS lens. But unfortunately, in all my red mist, I can see right through these 3 products. I can break down for you the amazing Canon marketing strategy that actually purposely HANDICAPS cameras and UNDER-SPECIFIES lenses to ensure there is enough segmentation in their lineup. And yes, they applied it to all of the 3 aforementioned products on purpose. Now note again, that I’m sure even Nikon does things to have sufficient market segmentation in their lineup, but I personally feel they are not as blatant as Canon.

Again I stress, that these by no means say that Canon makes poor products. On the contrary, their cameras are capable of amazing things. They have one of the most COMPLETE lens ranges and many a photographer has proven that to me time and time again what fantastic imagery can be captured with any of their cameras. Heck, I owned one for more than 2 years. I should know that.

So why then am I still so disgruntled? And what am I harping about by using the words ‘HANDICAPS’ and ‘UNDER-SPECIFIES’? Curious? I’m just getting to it.

To be continued…

The Canon vs. Nikon Conundrum

Part 1 – My Personal Journey’s Backstory
Part 2 – The Feedback Letter
Part 3 – The Marketing Machine
Part 4 – The Grass Is Always Greener

PS: I do realize a lot of this post will come across as Greek and pure techno-babble. I will try and explain some of it in layman terms if there’s enough interest, else don’t worry, this is a one-off thing… =)

My photographic journey really began when I was given my first digital camera by my parents before I went abroad to commence my Year 3 of Electrical Engineering in Melbourne way back in late 2003. This camera happened to be the Canon Powershot A70. This was a camera I did a lot of research on before buying, and as such, having done my due diligence, knew at the time that for the money, I not only had a simple and easy-to-use camera, but also one which had Program Mode, Aperture Mode, Shutter Mode and also Manual Mode. It was with this camera that I embarked on a journey through photography. The same journey which I’ve mentioned in an earlier post that I am still on.

Now the beauty of having being introduced to a camera with so many functions, was the ability to appreciate the benefits of spot metering, macro, long exposures, high ISO (more like to ‘avoid it’), and also panorama stitching. Back in the day I did not know how to use Photoshop, and I pretty much relied on whatever software Canon provided to make the most of my JPEGs.

Then in late 2006, when I was about to start my first official full time job, I decided to reward myself with a new camera, and this came to be the Canon 350D DSLR camera. The decision to get a Canon back in the day was relatively simple. My dad had owned a Canon film SLR. Also, since my first camera was a Canon, in seemed almost natural to transition within the same family. Not only that, I had a very limited budget, and my only other option at the time was the brand new Nikon D40 (which reviews didn’t speak well of due to the missing AF motor) and also a more expensive Nikon D80 or Canon 400D. Back then, I had yet to meet peer who really did any DSLR photography, so I went pretty much on a whim and bought the camera, along with the 18-55mm kit lens and a 90-300mm telephoto.

And from there I went through Phase 1 of my journey, discovering the limitless potential of DSLR photography, and along the way ‘poisoned’ a number of friends to pick it up as well. Phase 2 came swift and fast, and I bought the plastic fantastic 50mm f/1.8. This was not the end of it though. Within the first year of DSLR photography, I had acquired a 17-50mm f/2.8 Tamron lens, and also a 50-150mm f/2.8 Sigma lens, whilst selling the first two lenses my camera had come with. Soon afterwards, I learnt the painful way that Sigma lenses had front focusing problems, and thus after a service, decided to sell the Sigma. In its place came the 85mm f/1.8. In an unfortunate incident, my Tamron lens also suffered a poor fate. After rolling off the bed one day and landing with a loud ‘thud’ on the carpeted floor, I had to send it in for repair due to a serious photographic fault. It came back as good as new, but my confidence was shaken, and so as good as the lens was, I sold it.

What happened next? Well, in the midst of all this lens changing, I went through Phase 3 and covered a wedding along with two buddies of mine whom had also just picked up DSLR photography. I even managed to source a very cheaply priced 2nd hand 10-22mm ultra wide angle lens. Soon after, however, things got a little tricky. I loved the Tamron’s versatility and as such needed a direct replacement. I was left with a simple conundrum, but one which ultimately proved to be another case of learning the hard way. I tried to decide between two shortlisted lenses; the 17-40mm f/4.0 L lens, and the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS. I went for the former as I was sold by the possibility of one day moving to full frame. To some enthusiasts, this is considered ‘the dream’. The lens served me well. It even survived the extremities atop Mount Kinabalu, and also the pouring rain in Milford’s Sound in New Zealand.

However, one day in a rain drenched adventure at Franz Josef Glacier on the West Coast of New Zealand, my camera bag got soaked in torrential rain. My camera basically went through a serious malfunction and it refused to switch on. I was at a complete loss. My heart sank and I felt a cold shiver running repeatedly throughout my body. I was in a foreign land, with no camera, and at the time I had yet to even see Milford and Queenstown in South Island, both the photographic highlights of my supposed landscape photography extravaganza. After a heart-wrenching night in front of the fireplace drying the camera out, by a sheer miracle, the camera came back to life. The damage? The orientation sensor no longer worked and thus the camera no longer knew if the image was taken in portrait or landscape format in the review mode. Small matter really compared to the worst case scenario.

After going through a week of landscape nirvana in New Zealand, I felt rejuvenated. But there’s always a problem after seeing ‘heaven’. That problem is that you start comparing with ‘heaven’ and very soon I started to get very deflated, and such Phase 4 happened. Upon my return from New Zealand, I sent my trusty, battle weary 350D (a camera which had seen and gone through so much, which aside from the malfunction in New Zealand, also survived a fall against hard rocks up on the summit of Mount Kinabalu) in for a diagnosis. The prognosis was disturbing. Aside from the orientation sensor which was obviously damaged, Canon also found water damage in various other areas and quoted me a repair bill of more than 1000 RM. With a huge resigned sigh, I decided to take it back unrepaired, as it still functioned as a camera. But as a result of the prognosis, in my mind, the camera’s days were numbered. It did not help that I was finding that my images were mis-focusing every now and then.

Right around this time, I started to ponder an upgrade. However, I was dissatisfied with Canon’s attempts at the 40D and 50D, especially in the face of the Nikon D90 and the D300, the latter two clearly more feature packed cameras for the price brackets. As the cost of switching camps was too high for me to consider at the time, I carried on using my battle scarred 350D. In the midst of this, I also considered the jump to full frame by pondering the venerable Canon 5D. Then in early 2009, I purchased the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens and sold the 17-40mm, as I could no longer resist the addiction to fast glass and also the benefit of IS, which until date, I had not been able to personally experience. I pretty much sealed my fate in the APS-C camp. Or so I thought. As I said in an earlier paragraph, I learnt the hard way.

But as life should have it, Phase 4 would hit me longer and harder than I thought it would. My camera started to mis-focus more frequently, and my self-confidence started to deteriorate tremendously. This was not helped on by the fact that a fellow photographer friend mentioned my images were not looking sharp either. After a lot of thought, and putting some of my closest friends through my fickle mindedness, I did the unthinkable. I sold all my Canon gear with the exception of the camera and the 50mm f/1.8 lens. It would be wrong to sell a faulty camera off, and my conscience would not allow it. I kept the 50mm f/1.8 as I felt it was only fair that I kept one lens to use with the film and also the trusty 350D if I ever felt a sense of nostalgia.

What I did next stunned even more people. I purchased a Nikon D700. A huge leap of faith. Not only did I switch camps but I went from a APS-C sensor to a full frame sensor. The big question people ask is why did I switch camps? Why did I not just stick to Canon? Why full frame? Why not just consider the 5D Mark II?

Well, with the backstory covered, I can now go on to the real meat of the story.

To be continued…

The Canon vs. Nikon Conundrum

Part 1 – My Personal Journey’s Backstory
Part 2 – The Feedback Letter
Part 3 – The Marketing Machine
Part 4 – The Grass Is Always Greener