# Canon is less expensive than Nikon



## AcutancePhotography (Oct 1, 2014)

It is on the Internets Tubes so it must be true. ;D

Petapixle has a lot of time on their hands

http://petapixel.com/2014/09/30/expensive-camera-kits-photographers-can-buy-brand-2014/#more-146819



> What are the most expensive camera and lens combinations you can buy for each manufacturer? Of course you could spend $2.79 million on a historical 1923 Leica or $165,000 on an ultra-rare Canon 1200mm lens, but what about gear that any photographer can purchase through a normal retail outlet?
> 
> We decided to do some research into what the priciest camera kits (a body plus a lens) currently available to photographers [are] in 2014.



Nikon - $24,896

Nikon’s D3x DSLR costs $6,999, and the NIKKOR 800mm f/5.6E FL ED VR lens has a price tag of $17,897.

Canon - $23,498

The Canon 1D C — a 4K camera geared toward filmmaking — costs $9,999 and a Canon 800mm f/5.6L IS will cost you $13,499.

There ya go. 1400 bucks saved. 8)

Topping the list is Hassy (big surprise) at $53,160

The Hasselblad H5D-200c medium format DSLR has a hefty price tag of $45,000, and can be paired with an $8,160 Hasselblad 35-90mm f/4-5.6 HCD lens.

Time to get those Christmas wish lists updated. ;D


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Oct 1, 2014)

*Re: Canon is less expensive then Nikon*

Viewed in this angle, Canon 800mm seems very cheap.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Oct 1, 2014)

*Re: Canon is less expensive then Nikon*



AcutancePhotography said:


> The Canon 1D C — a 4K camera geared toward filmmaking — costs $9,999 and a Canon 800mm f/5.6L IS will cost you $13,499.
> 
> There ya go. 1400 bucks saved.



Sweet, now I'm 3% of the way towards that Canon 30-300 L lens I need for my 1DC!


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 1, 2014)

*Re: Canon is less expensive then Nikon*

The cost of ownership is a much more accurate way to compare costs. Equipment acquisition cost is only part of the story.

While I have a gut feeling that Nikon is most expensive, I have not and will not run the figures. For example, that Nikon 800 mm lens will have a lot more residual value in 5 or 10 years, but the cost of the money invested in buying it will offset that to some degree.


----------



## NancyP (Oct 3, 2014)

*Re: Canon is less expensive then Nikon*

Actually, I doubt that Nikon and Canon have much difference in depreciation of high-end lenses. The ANTIQUE Nikkor market is a whole 'nother ballgame. Canon HAS no antique market to speak of. But most used lenses are being bought to be used, not to sit in a display case. 

Petapixel just picked up someone else's blog story here. Slow news day, I guess.


----------



## Steve (Oct 3, 2014)

*Re: Canon is less expensive then Nikon*



NancyP said:


> Petapixel just picked up someone else's blog story here. Slow news day, I guess.



Thus is literally all petapixel ever does. Its basically "reddit said a thing about camera" in easy to digest blog form


----------



## unfocused (Oct 3, 2014)

*Re: Canon is less expensive then Nikon*

Obviously these people are idiots, since they are comparing a cinema camera to a still's camera. Looks like Canon would be even more of a bargain if they compared apples to apples and 1Dxs to D3xs


----------



## Vgramatikov (Oct 5, 2014)

in terms of ability and price Canon is cheaper than Nikon from long days before.

People usually compare the big telephotos from Nikon and Canon.

But they just do not understand that the previous versions of Canon IS mk1 are equal or better than current Nikon telephotos (most of them). 

Newer Canon IS mk2 telephotos as tech and optics are one step ahead of all sport systems ever made.

You can found same trends and for other optics and cameras on the second hand market. 

But nowadays Nikon are forced to show better gear for the money than Canon and they succeed in a lot of cases. Mainly in some newer lenses and cameras.


----------

