# Switching to Nikon



## Benhider (Jul 17, 2011)

I know this is possibly not the perfect place to discuss this, but I've had such bad experience with cps and and sick of the focus issues with my 5d mark ii that I've seriously thought about switching to nikon. 

I own 2 x 5D mark ii's, 16-35 2.8ii, 24-105, 70-200 2.8 ISii, 50 1.2 and 24 1.4. 

As you can see I'm pretty deep into the canon family, but I'm finally becoming sick of the poor focus, small spread of focus points and the bad service of gear. 

I borrowed a mark iv on my platinum cps, and although I was initially impressed, my conclusion was not amazed, and the color profile of the camera is odd compared to 5d's. 

What do other people think. Has anyone made the switch, or looked into it seriously. What's the user experience with the nikons. Color profiles? Focus?


----------



## chito (Jul 17, 2011)

I don't know much about Nikon.. but I think you should wait until the new FF cameras are out before you decide to make the switch... There should be _something_ out and in use before the summer Olympics .. If you are still disappointed after that then you can switch knowing that Canon will probably wait another 4 years for a pro refresh...


----------



## ghstark (Jul 17, 2011)

Bought a Nikon D3S for the same reasons focus & white Balance(Colour) it's a great camera focus is exellent(not perfect) & colours out of the camera are great.But Colours are a personal choice what you may prefer or not. I still have the 5D MK2 with 50mm f1.4,70-200 f2.8 isII (Amazing Lens) & 28-105f3.5/4.5 with 2 580 flasguns and don't plan to sell them but for my Wedding Work i am using the Nikon D3S most of the time now..


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 17, 2011)

Benhider said:


> I know this is possibly not the perfect place to discuss this, but I've had such bad experience with cps and and sick of the focus issues with my 5d mark ii that I've seriously thought about switching to nikon.
> 
> I own 2 x 5D mark ii's, 16-35 2.8ii, 24-105, 70-200 2.8 ISii, 50 1.2 and 24 1.4.
> 
> ...



The Grass is always greener --- Check some of the Nikon forums to find out what they think of Nikon Service. Many switch to Canon due to poor service, and what they feel is the obsolete low resolution bodies.

Personally, I'd be equally happy with either brand, I just happened to get a Canon Rebel DSLR when they first came out, and now have a huge Investment in Canon lenses. The 15 or 20 Canon DSLR bodies I've had since then were fine, and also the many lenses I've had. Same with two or three Nikon DSLR's and lenses. I did have to have a Nikkor 300mm f/2.8 repaired, but it had issues when I bought it for a very low price, so after the fix, it was still cheap.


----------



## motorhead (Jul 17, 2011)

As the owner of Nikon cameras in the past and a Nikon scanner still, I have experienced both Canon and Nikon service. I have to say that for me Nikon beats Canon on every front using this measure.

However, I suggest you have a look at some of the Nikon forums. There seems exactly the same discontent about the product as we see on the Canon forums. I suggest that this is more of a reflection on peoples hopes measured against realities than any actual benefit or problem of either marque.


----------



## V8Beast (Jul 18, 2011)

Nikon has the clear edge right now in terms of AF, FPS, and high ISO performance in the $2,500-and-up segment. Like you, I've considered making the switch recently, but decided that since I've toughed it out this long, I might as well wait a few more months until Canon makes some major announcements and reveals its strategy for the 1D and perhaps the 5D series bodies. 

Your needs may differ, but a huge consideration is how much comparable Nikon glass would cost compared to the Canon gear you have now. My primary lenses are the 17-40L, 24-105L, and the 70-300L. In pricing out what it would cost to cover a similar range of focal lengths with Nikon glass, Canon lenses seemed like a much better value. Then there's all the little BS that needs replacement which will add up quickly, like flashes, cable releases, filters, wireless triggers, etc. 

To put it succinctly, for my shooting needs - where I'm willing to sacrifice megapixels for superior AF, ISO, and FPS - I think Nikon has superior bodies at the moment. However, I still think Canon has a better overall system, and the momentum will shift once again after Canon updates its bodies.


----------



## ronderick (Jul 18, 2011)

I think the best is to rent an entire set for a short period and try them out.

Say, D700 + 14-24, 24-120, and 70-200.

Despite a small investment, obtaining your own experience is probably more
accurate than anything else.


----------



## awinphoto (Jul 18, 2011)

ronderick said:


> I think the best is to rent an entire set for a short period and try them out.
> 
> Say, D700 + 14-24, 24-120, and 70-200.
> 
> ...



I would concur this sentiment... Play with the equipment first before you jump ship so you dont have buyers remorse later. Like you i use CPS and canon service regularly, (gold member)... CPS has worked with me in the past given me whatever loaner gear I requested whenever I requested it and when I've called for support they have been more than willing to help... That being said, there's a lot of room to be improved such as email support (they sometimes reply to me via email, other time not) and communication during service work... I usually get an email when they confirm they are STARTING work, not when received which can be 24 hours afterwards, and an email after it ships... almost all my service work was done within 24 hours from when they start and also while they claim they will ship it to you via 2 day service, 9 out of 10 times for me, they ship it overnight for free... 

Is CPS perfect? No. Will they cater to your every whim and email or kiss your butt? Nope. For what they offer and cost, is it more than acceptable? Sure... For full disclosure, what issues do you have with CPS to give you a bad experience? With the AF problems, even with the 1d4, you said you were initially impressed but overall not content... how so? Can you elaborate so we can best help? The 5D AF is the primary reason why i wont consider upgrading from the 7D to the 5D MII... If the 5D MIII has the 7D AF or better, I will upgrade in a heartbeat.


----------



## ChuckBrix (Jul 20, 2011)

There is a rumour (I am English hence the spelling) that I will stick with Canon. 
Been with Canon since 1978, too much tied in now to change, but do I need to change.
You just have to watch the TV news and sport especially in Europe to spot all the white lenses and red ring lenses, all the Canon L range. 
If its good enough for them I am sure I can manage with what Canon have.


----------



## dr croubie (Jul 20, 2011)

ChuckBrix said:


> There is a rumour (I am English hence the spelling) that I will stick with Canon.



do not *EVER* apologi*s*e for spelling something correctly  


meanwhile, i've had my bad dealings with canon service, took my 3-month old 7D back to get fixed for dead pixels, and despite clear instructions saying where they were, i had to send it back a total of *3* times before they were gone. I could even tell they'd taken photos to test (the 2nd time) because the numbering was wrong. yet they still sent it back for me to return to them a 3rd time.
(then when i got it back after the 3rd, no dead pixels, AF on every lens didn't work. thankfully a 'restore to factory settings' fixed that)

then i rewarded them for that a few months later by buying a 70-300L. and my 7D rewarded me again by killing more of its pixels.
sigh.
sometimes i think i'm gonna bail to another company, but i doubt they'd have any better luck...


----------



## motorhead (Jul 20, 2011)

I get the impression that dead pixels are a fact of life, a cross we must bear, regardless of marque.

Hopefully over time, as the technology matures, they will get better.


----------



## awinphoto (Jul 20, 2011)

While dead pixels are on the same ranges of death and taxes, on a 3 month old camera would raise some hairs on my neck. They probably set the camera to "map out" the pixels and fill them in with surrounding data (instead of replacing the sensor), but it is what it is. While I haven't had any overtly negative experiences, my cleanings and warranty repair has been somewhat satisfactory before... I cant speak for nikons service or any other service, but it's just my opinion overall "service" has kinda deteriorated over the last few years across the board for all companies. I bought a TV from best buy and it had dead pixels in a cluster and they sent out their techs and determined it was a fluke that wasn't covered by my extended warranty... tough luck.. If you aren't doing something warranty related, I recommend sending stuff for repairs to mom and pop stores... more service, they tend to go over and beyond to meet your needs, and in this economy they need all the work they can get.


----------



## gene_can_sing (Jul 20, 2011)

Canon stopped innovating after the last 5D2, and will not start again until the 5D3 coming Summer of 2020.


----------



## UncleFester (Jul 20, 2011)

Benhider said:


> I know this is possibly not the perfect place to discuss this, but I've had such bad experience with cps and and sick of the focus issues with my 5d mark ii that I've seriously thought about switching to nikon.
> 
> I own 2 x 5D mark ii's, 16-35 2.8ii, 24-105, 70-200 2.8 ISii, 50 1.2 and 24 1.4.
> 
> ...



You didn't say what focus issues you're having. Low light? Moving? A particular lens?


----------



## bornshooter (Jul 20, 2011)

if you wanna go to nikon just go dont bitch about it just leave


----------



## EYEONE (Jul 20, 2011)

I feel that the cost to switch from Canon to Nikon or Nikon to Canon is just too much to justify. The cameras that both companies have out right now are amazing (even though some are old) and so similar it makes it difficult to even come up with a good reason to switch in my mind.

You can take absolutely brillant pictures with a Rebel or a D3100. Even better on a 5D Mark II or a D700. And, yes you can start lusting after the autofocus points of the D700 if you want to. But you could also spend that time shooting with the camera you have and perfecting your craft.

I understand techno-lust. It's the reason I have a 70-200mm f2.8 IS II and if I had to do it again I wouldn't. But if someone comes up with a good reason to switch to Nikon the that is ok by me. I just think we need to be on guard against replacing logical reasoning with a lust for new stuff.


----------



## WarStreet (Jul 20, 2011)

gene_can_sing said:


> I'm not a still photographer, but more of a video guy. And unless Canon comes out with a very long over-due video DSLR or video camera, I too will be switching to Sony. Berger engineering is coming out with an EF to Sony mount for all my nice Canon glass, and when that is released (prototypes are already out), good bye Canon.
> 
> I think Canon is really starting fall behind their competitors with very dated tech especially in video, which they refuse to update or improve. It completely boggles my mind how Canon fumbled the large sensor video market that they accidentally invented, and let Sony and Panasonic take it over. Their handling of the video segment, which they should have easily owned, shows the serious flaws in their management and pro-market business strategy.
> 
> To blow something that was lucrative and easy for them, just shows what type of company Canon is, a company with no vision, but only a name for the masses.



With all respect, I think you are too negative. Does Nikon, Sony and Panasonic have a FF DSLR with video capability at the same price of the 5DII ? As far as I know only the newer and expensive D3S has video with only 720p and I don't think it is considered as a great video camera for the price. 

Nikon was lagging against the 5D, a first FF camera with cheap price. Eventually they released the D700, And Canon had the luxury to wait, and release a bit later the new 5DII with video capability. If the 5DII was released slightly before, we might have never seen video in it which started a new trend during the last years. These means Nikon are lagging again with the D700, and Canon has the luxury to play the same game, waiting and release something few months later with that extra feature which can be used for another 3 years. 

I think they know what they are doing, and don't agree they accidentally invented the FF video market, or that they have no vision, but that they are playing a great chess game! At first insight it might look equal, but in reality they have an advantage and they are in control of the game by maintaining that advantage. Once the new entry-level FF cameras are released, We should see if they managed to maintain this advantage or not. Personally, I think Sony will release something impressive, and it's going to be a difficult game for Canon, but a competitive one for sure 

I understand that you are frustrated and that you have your needs, but the update cycle is dictated by the market, and we all know and expect an update after 3 - 3 1/2 years. This is not a delay, it is expected. The new tele-lenses are delayed. If there is a good alternative for you before the 5DIII release, you should go for it, since we won't see an upgrade before the 3 years.


----------



## UncleFester (Jul 20, 2011)

I think a lot of people figure if the load up on gear that their particular style/genre of photography will magically appear. And when it doesn't they start blaming it on the equipment. 

The 5dII has it's short comings, I should know, but it also has it's strengths and it's our jobs to decide what goes where and which tool for the job. 

Each brand is very capable.


----------



## Tommygun (Jul 20, 2011)

Agreed that Nikon and Canon are notably similar, and that Canon is in the driver's seat. That Birger (not Berger) adapter is for the AF100, which though nice, is not a still camera - so really different ballpark. Perhaps where Canon has fallen behind is in the autofocus realm (again Sony); but I still think the footage from the 5DII is on par, albeit manually focused. Moreover, if you've got a lot of Canon glass and you're looking for an adapter for it to use on other cameras, you're still stuck with manual focus - so no reason to switch!


----------



## KBX500 (Jul 21, 2011)

bornshooter said:


> if you wanna go to nikon just go dont bitch about it just leave



He's not "bitching." He has respectfully requested opinions on 
his dilemma. How can you possibly have a problem with that ?


----------



## canon1969 (Jul 21, 2011)

I agree... you should leave Canon and sell me your primes in a fire sale!


----------



## Flake (Jul 21, 2011)

For me the 12 MP of the D series is now far too low. Yes you can eke a little more Iso performance, but it's only about half a stop better than the 5D MKII and it also has a weaker bayer matrix because it's more of an action oriented camera (same for the 1D MkIV).

My niggles with Nikon are mostly sensor based the current affordable models are old and have poor resolution, the higher resolution sensors are supplied by Sony & as they are apparantly looking to pull out of FF I feel that this might cripple Nikons ability for future development.

As for autofocus, I have no doubt that Canon crippled the 5D MkII with a poor autofocus system, possibly because of the 1D MkIII issues, but the 7D has a much better system. I tried a 5D MkII against a D700 both with Sigma 70 - 200mm f/2.8 lenses at night. The Nikons autofocus gave up long before the 5D did in low light, so I think it's not as clear cut as you might think.

The other issue is the price & choice of lenses. With Canon there are 3 x 50mm primes 4 (there was 5) 70 - 200mm zoom lenses, and more importantly a reasonably performing standard zoom with IS an option not available to Nikon users. Prices are roughly 25% higher than equivalent Canon models and availability is sometimes patchy. There's no equivalent to the MP-e 65mm, the Tilt shifts are tilt or shift (not both at the same time), there are no equivalents to the very fast primes (50mm & 85mm f/1.2).

While it's the photographer who makes the shot not the camera gear, I'll be sticking with the Canon stuff.


----------



## awinphoto (Jul 21, 2011)

I know I will be dating myself to some newer photographers, but when I was in college, at the beginning of the digital revolution, my school had several Nikon D1x's and only a few Canon D30's... The D30's were more of an afterthought as far as the school was concerned... you can use them if you wanted, but why would you when you have the nikon d1x workhorse... It would be only about 2-4 months until canon either released the Canon D60's (or 2-4 months when my school got around to buying them, not sure which). Anyways after learning the D60, everything from menus to interface to lenses to everything was so much nicer, in my opinion, to the nikon and so I stuck with canon and bought my first canon digital when the 10D came out. It could have changed but I just hated Nikons interface and menus... It was like photoshop, there was 5 menu things that did the same friggen thing and each could counteract each other... I never got comfortable with the D1x. 

Canon does have it's bumps and the grass always seems greener on the other side, but remember it could just be a mirage...


----------



## dr croubie (Jul 22, 2011)

awinphoto said:


> I know I will be dating myself to some newer photographers, but when I was in college, at the beginning of the digital revolution, my school had several Nikon D1x's and only a few Canon D30's...



Dating yourself? i think you're dating yourself young, and at a rich school to boot.
My school's photography lab consisted of a bunch of film cameras, i thought slr, but could be rangefinder, i think olympus, i know they had selenium light-meters in a circle around the lens (although now all i can picture in my head is my dad's Petri 7S).
When i was at the end of highschool (finished 2000), they forked out a mint for a digital camera, i think i was allowed to touch it once. It had a freakin 1.44mb floppy drive in the back (which says a lot about the camera size, and image size too).

And i was at one of the most expensive (top-5) private schools in the state, $8000 a year it (should have) cost my parents (i was on a scholarship). We had a nice darkroom, and i think that beat every other school's facilities as it was...


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 22, 2011)

dr croubie said:


> awinphoto said:
> 
> 
> > I know I will be dating myself to some newer photographers, but when I was in college, at the beginning of the digital revolution, my school had several Nikon D1x's and only a few Canon D30's...
> ...



You are both youngsters. We used a graflex 4 X 5 back in the late 1950's/ early 60's in high school. Also a TLR or two.

The Graflex took good photos though. Here is a scan of one from 1960 that I just did for our upcoming 50th reunion.


----------



## bornshooter (Jul 22, 2011)

KBX500 said:


> bornshooter said:
> 
> 
> > if you wanna go to nikon just go dont bitch about it just leave
> ...


yes i do have a problem if you wanna switch just switch don't go seeking attention in canon forums I'm sick of it if you go to nikon rumours they like to slate us they stick together and its clowns like this that annoy me as far as I'm concerned canon make the best yes the focus system on the 5d mk2 may not be the best but i wonder how much of peoples problems are actually down to user error id say a lot of them.so what I'm saying is if anyone want to switch to nikon then goodbye and good ridens sell your gear make us happy then get outta here


----------



## awinphoto (Jul 22, 2011)

dr croubie said:


> awinphoto said:
> 
> 
> > I know I will be dating myself to some newer photographers, but when I was in college, at the beginning of the digital revolution, my school had several Nikon D1x's and only a few Canon D30's...
> ...



What school did you go to if you don't mind me asking? I graduated from Brooks in 04. It wasn't the cheapest school, that's for sure, I was dearly reminded every time my student loans came up for renewal. The first half of school was all film from 35mm to medium format to 4x5's and then I switched to digital cause post was so much easier than our darkrooms and cheaper. Our instructors were Pains in the butt, but was a good reality to industry expectations... If your photos were not up to par or if you pissed them off, it wouldn't be uncommon to find your photo assignments in the classroom trash can. If your overmat you were required to cut for assignments was overcut or your mounting job wasn't glued on enough where they can peel up a corner, they'd rip if off... But after the years of abuse I'm kinda hardened to harsh critiques. It was rumored that one instructor was so peeved with his class that at the end of the class/term he passed out McDonalds applications to all the students. 

God forbid I bring up film on these forums, it might as well be a f word. I've noticed on these forums there are 2 types of photogs. Those who are Pre-digital and used film and post digital who never shot with film. I'm just enough into the pre digital to be labeled an old timer in many photogs perception. It's kinda depressing how many "professional" photographers there are who never shot film. Film you had to know exposure/printing/darkroom because if you screwed up camera exposure, you had to adjust your film development... If you didn't do that, you had to use stronger filters in printing or else it came out like crap and it literally cost you time and money to fix your mistake. Now people complain about time in post-processing in photoshop now... It just makes me chuckle thinking about the hours in the darkroom testing and trying to get the perfect print and the tiniest thing able to screw it up.


----------



## awinphoto (Jul 22, 2011)

bornshooter said:


> KBX500 said:
> 
> 
> > bornshooter said:
> ...



God forbid we bring up user error. =) It can NEVER be user error because we all know that world class AF has been around for, what 30-40 years? What? It hasn't? Well maybe the early 90's? What? No? Well then how the heck did photographers EVER focused without a worldclass AF? Ok I'm off my soapbox now...

I kinda have my perception people who post things like this really are peeved BUT waiting for someone to talk them out of it... Secretly hoping some high up CEO of Canon is snooping on Canon Rumor and come across his thread just to shower them with gifts and kissing his rump to stay. Dont let them get to you.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 22, 2011)

> yes i do have a problem if you wanna switch just switch don't go seeking attention in canon forums I'm sick of it



I agree. I really don't care what camera anyone uses. My first reaction when I read the original post was: "Go tell someone who cares." If someone wants to switch camera brands, that's their choice. I'm not going to try to talk them out of it. It's a personal choice based on all sort of rational and irrational factors.

Besides, there is absolutely no possible useful advice anyone on a forum can give beyond: "go rent the other brand for awhile and try it out."

In fact, I would suggest someone set up a internet robot that automatically writes that response anytime anyone on any forum asks about switching brands.


----------



## motorhead (Jul 22, 2011)

God forbid we bring up user error. =) It can NEVER be user error because we all know that world class AF _has "been around for, what 30-40 years? What? It hasn't? Well maybe the early 90's? What? No? Well then how the heck did photographers EVER focused without a worldclass AF? Ok I'm off my soapbox now...

I kinda have my perception people who post things like this really are peeved BUT waiting for someone to talk them out of it... Secretly hoping some high up CEO of Canon is snooping on Canon Rumor and come across his thread just to shower them with gifts and kissing his rump to stay. Dont let them get to you"._ 

Awinphoto,

I often get that reaction whenever I read motorsports togs wanting ever faster fps. Shooting one frame at a time has allowed the star motorsports togs of the past to produce really beautiful shots and ever more fps is not a replacement for talent. I shoot a little motorsport and have played with the "machine gun mode" on occasion, but my best images, at least the ones I'm most proud of, are always carefully taken in one-shot mode.

But, and this is a general comment aimed at us all, me included. It's easy to be critical of others opinions and thats one reason I no longer frequent a certain Canon forum, because of the sometimes vicious threads cutting each other to pieces. I hope here that we can be broad minded enough to listen to and understand opinions other than our own.


----------



## dr croubie (Jul 22, 2011)

Am i the only one who read the OP and didn't read any whingeing? sure, a few complaints that we've all heard before, but the post ended with "what do other people think of nikons, if you've use them?".

but then, this is the internet, and i wonder how many people read the post instead of just reading the title and getting enraged automatically.
perhaps a better thread title would have been "switching to nikon*?*".

ps, for whoever wrote that long rant: use grammar and punctuation. Long sentences make you sound like a teenager getting upset and your point gets missed. If the monologue in my head as i read sounds like an old woman yabbering in my head without taking a breath, then i'm going to ignore it just as much. And i highly doubt i'm the only one...


----------



## unfocused (Jul 22, 2011)

> i wonder how many people read the post instead of just reading the title and getting enraged automatically.



I'm not enraged. Just old and cranky. I've been reading and participating in this forum for quite some time and I guess I get a little bored with the endless variations of the same questions/complaints which have answers that are self-evident. 

When I read the OP I thought to myself: _"What 'Platinum' user of Canon Professional Services would need to turn to this forum to be told to go rent a camera and try it out?"_ and _"What other advice could anyone possibly give that would be of any use, since the preference for a particular camera brand is totally subjective?"_

I refrained from responding to see if there would be something I was missing. There wasn't. 

I guess I'm just a little cranky because it seems like an awful lot of time is spent on this forum endlessly revisiting the same old debates. Okay. I've vented. Now I feel better.


----------



## spaceheat (Jul 24, 2011)

I have thought about switching to Nikon from time to time, but I have no desire to go through the hassle of unloading my gear to fund the switch. I would have to finance it up front and hope to recoup the costs by selling my gear second hand. Not a very reasonable proposition on a photographer's salary.

Anyways... A guy that I shoot weddings with uses Nikons, and he is overall very satisfied. He constantly raves about my 85 1.2 and the color from my 5D. I am impressed that he has zero AF issues. The color that Nikon puts out seems a bit off to me, but that is probably because I am used to Canons.

I will say that I think the 5D classic blows away the newer Canons in terms of color... (Call me crazy). For me, it is just a complete sweet spot in terms of color response, sensor size, iso performance. I have a 7D that I have been pretty disappointed with in terms of both color and AF performance. Calibration helps... but it still seems a bit odd in certain situations.

My experience with the 7D is what led to the thoughts of switching. Missing shots because the AF is off really sucks and I have even considered trading it in for another 5D Classic. I think they may have gotten the AF straightened out though, so I will give it some time and see how it goes.

Bottom line is... every system has it's pitfalls. The challenge is working with what you got to get the job done. That is why I think it's insane to upgrade to a new body every three years. As soon as you have learned the subtleties of the body your working with, you have to start all over again. No way does that seem worth the hassle or the price tag.


----------



## KBX500 (Jul 24, 2011)

Benhider said:


> Thanks all... what a bunch of whining bitches YOU all are. I was hoping someone who reads this would have tried using a Nikon in general frustration with Canon. Of course Nikon has it's own problems. But surely they're slightly different from Canons? Seems like nobody can help, and the obvious solution of rentals is the way to go. Nikon offer no support or rental program.
> 
> I'm not switching right now. I'll stick out the next update of all cameras.
> 
> ...




_"what a bunch of whining bitches YOU all are." _ 

Well now, thank you very much.


----------



## KeithR (Jul 24, 2011)

It takes a particular kind of dense to make your first post on the _Canon_ Rumors website, in a forum called _Canon_ general, a question about shifting to Nikon.

I agree with the posts what wonder what kind of "pro" you are to need to be _told_ to hire a camera to try it out.


----------



## Haydn1971 (Jul 24, 2011)

KeithR said:


> It takes a particular kind of dense to make your first post on the _Canon_ Rumors website, in a forum called _Canon_ general, a question about shifting to Nikon.



Hmmm... You might wish to rephrase your first post too ! Making a first post by means of insulting another new member takes a particular kind of dense too !

Back to the OP, I'd go with the rental of some Nikon kit for a few weeks to get a feel for if you really do want to swap camp, but I'd keep an eye out in September for what happens with the high end releases from Camon & Nikon - it's looking likely that one of them will blink in the current Mexican standoff ;-)


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 24, 2011)

Benhider said:


> Thanks all... what a bunch of whining bitches YOU all are. I was hoping someone who reads this would have tried using a Nikon in general frustration with Canon. Of course Nikon has it's own problems. But surely they're slightly different from Canons? Seems like nobody can help, and the obvious solution of rentals is the way to go. Nikon offer no support or rental program.
> 
> I'm not switching right now. I'll stick out the next update of all cameras.
> 
> ...



Welcome to Canon Rumors

Since this is a Canon forum, there are not a lot of real contributors who also use Nikon, I've used both, and to me, they are just tools. You can learn to use either and get supurb results, but they are different. Each has its strengths and weaknesses, so if one of the Nikon strong points is what you need, rent or buy one to confirm its right for you.

In all the online forums, there are lots of childish remarks. I think a lot of 11 year old kids just like to troll the forums. Ignore them, they are not worth the time to respond.


----------



## KeithR (Jul 27, 2011)

Haydn1971 said:


> Hmmm... You might wish to rephrase your first post too ! Making a first post by means of insulting another new member takes a particular kind of dense


Far from it - mine was a first post from a long-time "lurker" who has little patience for the kind of post that started the thread, regardless of which forum it is posted in.

The simple fact is that posting a question in a Canon-dedicated forum about shifting to Nikon is about as appropriate and as welcome as signing up to a website for Jewish folk and asking whether for opinions about whether Danish bacon is better than English bacon.

You _do_ see the problem, I trust... 

There's nothing dense about objecting to trolling and flamebait, and by any current definition the first post was a troll post - not to mention his ignorant follow-up, accusing everyone as "whining bitches". 

Ample provocation for my first post on the subject. It's apologists for trolls - like yourself - that make internet forums the dismal places to deal with that they frequently are.


----------



## WarStreet (Jul 27, 2011)

Canonrumors forum is very mature, and there were posts in the past asking for help about deciding to get either a Canon or Nikon DSLR. The replies has always been helpful, and I do remember that Nikon being recommended quit often too due to the user needs. Usually the pros and cons are mentioned and then it's up to the user to decide what's best for him by using the given information. You won't find this maturity in Nikonrumors, where they just mention Canon in a negative way in every non related thread, and lot's of stupid incorrect technical stuff which only confuse and direct new users to the wrong direction. 

I consider Canon and Nikon as equally good overall as a tool, but personally I prefer Canon from a technology perspective and give credit to Canon for innovation and for leading the market. I also give credit to Sony for the interesting new stuff they are doing. But this is just a personal choice.


----------



## kubelik (Jul 27, 2011)

KeithR said:


> Haydn1971 said:
> 
> 
> > Hmmm... You might wish to rephrase your first post too ! Making a first post by means of insulting another new member takes a particular kind of dense
> ...



regardless of the intent of the OP, I disagree with your statement here, Keith. as WarStreet noted, most folks on CR are perfectly happy to discuss Canon vs Nikon fairly objectively, as there are plenty of folks on here who are:

1. former nikon shooters (me)
2. nikon + canon owners
3. working professionals who aren't in love with a system beyond its ability to help them get their job done

I don't think bringing up the issue of switching to Nikon should be ruled as flamebait or trolling. plenty of serious, longtime contributors to the forums and the photographic industry (such as Macfly) have brought the same question up before, since it is absolutely a pertinent issue in our industry.

Canon rumors is the most legitimate and professional photo rumors site out there, and while tons of it is the work of Craig, a lot of the rest of it comes from the overall maturity and professionalism of the forum inhabitants. don't simplify the CR forums into a fanboy gathering.


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Jul 27, 2011)

I'll just hop on the train to say that, regardless of the many helpful replies given on the first page and throughout, KeithR is onto something in that the OP seems either not to be exactly sure about what they need, or they haven't explained exactly what their problem is. On top of that, there is still a general rule on the web that you need to be careful and have a thick skin when asking questions in places that you might reasonably expect to receive them coldly (like going to a Microsoft Xbox related site and asking about how those Nintendo systems are...going to a Ford site and asking about Chevrolet...etc.)

On that first page I saw some helpful comparisons between Nikon and Canon in cameras and service, so maybe somebody posted something elsewhere that set the OP off. Well, you just have to have a thick skin about such things - after all the OP themselves were apparently prepared that might just happen, so why the outrage?

To give my own thoughts about the situation...this looks like a possibly pivotal moment in photography, with all the widespread confusion about ISO and resolution, balanced against the very real need of many photographers to keep filesizes to a minimum and shot counts (and speed) high. From what I have seen, Canon has not impressed with their AF on the absolutely cheapest bodies, but the bargain basement DSLRs are full of compromises anyway.

I too am hoping for something good to be announced just over the horizon (i.e. before the end of the year) but I will watch and wait. It seems that the EF mount is not a special benefit to the OP, but for me it is.


----------



## lady (Jul 27, 2011)

I don't think there's anything wrong with being curious about switching. Nikon makes fantastic cameras. If it were financially possibly I would carry both Nikons *and* Canons. I used a Nikon years back (the d40) and loved it. It's all about personal preference. You could be using the best, most expensive camera in the world but if its layout doesn't work with your hands you're going to hate it and take terrible pictures. 

I find that Nikons have a much better button layout, however, their camera ergonomics are lacking. Canon has great ergonomics down to a "T". For me this is important because I have tiny hands and weak wrists. Other people may not notice the difference so much. Good ergonomics is the difference between my arms getting tired and shaking, and me taking a good picture without getting exhausted in a few minutes.

Nikons, as somebody else mentioned, have less megapixels in their cameras. I'm not sure if there's any data to back up Nikon having larger pixels, but generally when you raise cameras to very high megapixel counts you make the pixels smaller to cram a larger number in there. This decreases the quality of an image. I know people who would swear on whatever holy book they follow that Nikons have better coloring/image quality. I have noticed it as well, but I haven't found an unbiased side by side comparison of the two yet. 

For me, ergonomics and a lower price point is how canon won me over. For you, all you need to do is rent both, try them out, and see which one fits you more. If you're still unsure, then don't switch.


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Jul 27, 2011)

lady said:


> I don't think there's anything wrong with being curious about switching. Nikon makes fantastic cameras. If it were financially possibly I would carry both Nikons *and* Canons. I used a Nikon years back (the d40) and loved it. It's all about personal preference. You could be using the best, most expensive camera in the world but if its layout doesn't work with your hands you're going to hate it and take terrible pictures.


I agree with all of that.



> I find that Nikons have a much better button layout, however, their camera ergonomics are lacking. Canon has great ergonomics down to a "T". For me this is important because I have tiny hands and weak wrists. Other people may not notice the difference so much. Good ergonomics is the difference between my arms getting tired and shaking, and me taking a good picture without getting exhausted in a few minutes.


This is also an interesting point - for me, where Nikon falls down is the absolutely terrible, barely readable font (aping the eight segment LCD displays of years past) and generally cluttered layout of their back LCD. On a really cheap camera like the D3000, which I have used a bit, it's nothing that prevents me from taking a good picture, and I suppose the animated graphic of the lens aperture may be useful - though I imagine many people would find it condescending and silly. I personally just found it to be a waste of space. My T1i, on the other hand, is so good at presenting data and with its button layout that I almost dread having to go to a multiple control dial layout, when I can currently do everything control-wise with my right hand. Only mode switches and the occasional unusual feature (mirror lock up) require moving a hand (in the case of MLU, it sadly requires digging into a menu, but it's still easy to find).



> Nikons, as somebody else mentioned, have less megapixels in their cameras. I'm not sure if there's any data to back up Nikon having larger pixels, but generally when you raise cameras to very high megapixel counts you make the pixels smaller to cram a larger number in there. This decreases the quality of an image. I know people who would swear on whatever holy book they follow that Nikons have better coloring/image quality. I have noticed it as well, but I haven't found an unbiased side by side comparison of the two yet.


I don't want to beat the dead horse about this but this is not necessarily a point in Nikon's favor. More pixels mean that despite how good each individual Nikon pixel may look, you are getting more data points with a higher-density sensor - which is not just more resolution, but also more data for reducing noise. If you get a hot pixel on a lower-density sensor, you stand to lose more details.

There have been some heated debates on DPR Forums about the suitability of using some units for discussing pixel density over others. Some have pointed out that "pixel density" is a derived unit, and thus harder to gain insight from, when pixel pitch is a perfectly suitable measurement.

It does seem plausible to me that there are some improvements in ISO sensitivity possible with larger pixels - after all Nikon cameras seem to have achieved this - and of course we don't live in a world where throwing more pixels at a problem makes it go away; ISO-centered cameras are still important. But, barring ISO critical photography (and even there, much of the time), if you had a binary choice between improving lowering noise or increasing resolution (which seems a false, oversimplified binary choice), for now increasing resolution gives benefits for noise as well.

One final random note: For a while I took it as gospel that Nikon's use of Sony sensors meant that Canon was in a much better position for the future as it did sensor development in-house. But lately some reading about new Sony sensors has led me to wonder if the old paradigm is not assured and that Sony, with the current "also ran" status of the Alpha series, will enter the top tier with newer cameras. Their line seems to be lacking in some important areas (lenses, marketing, website details, possibly more but I can't comment on service etc. having not used it) but I would not count this big (biggest) developer of DSLR camera sensors out yet. From Canon's point, I wonder if they will be able to match some of the developments Sony has made to stay competitive.


----------



## dr croubie (Jul 28, 2011)

lady said:


> I find that Nikons have a much better button layout, however, their camera ergonomics are lacking. Canon has great ergonomics down to a "T". For me this is important because I have tiny hands and weak wrists. Other people may not notice the difference so much. Good ergonomics is the difference between my arms getting tired and shaking, and me taking a good picture without getting exhausted in a few minutes.



This point doesn't even have to be about Canon vs Nikon, it goes for Canon vs Canon as well. I've got a 7D, main lens 15-85. I've got the custom buttons set up how I like (like top-dial does Aperture in Av and M mode, joystick does AF point select (i leave it on 5-spot most of the time). I take most of my shots without moving my eye from the viewfinder, except thos MLU shots (which i MF on live-view anyway).
After owning it for 6 months & 10,000 shots, i tried my sister's 550D with 18-55IS kit lens, and I couldn't get used to it at all. no wheel, no joystick, nothing was where i wanted or expected it to be. but she's had it also about 6 months, and can take photos just as fast as I can without moving her eye from the viewfinder.
Ergonomics is just something you get used to, imho. but my sis has tiny hands compared to me (she's only 5'3" or something, i'm 6'0). 550D fits her hands, 7D fits mine. I've never tried a nikon for more than 20 minutes, but i'm sure there's a model that fits my hands somewhere, the rest of it may take getting used to, but it'll happen if you want it to (and as long as the functions exist 'somewhere' in a menu, you'll get fast enough at activating them).


----------



## motorhead (Jul 28, 2011)

It's interesting how we all differ in our preferences.

I detest the Canon method of hiding things away in the Custom Menu. I can never remember the correct sequence of fiddly little buttons to press , much preferring a dedicated button for one or maybe two jobs even if it makes the body seem "cluttered". It's OK to hide things in the CF list that might never be used, but routine adjustments need to be immediately accessible. I'd happily choose to ban the CF menu for ever.

I well remember trying to explain to a died-in-the-wool Nikon user how I select mirror-lock-up on my 30D. He was amazed when he was able to press one button.


----------



## Flake (Jul 28, 2011)

Canon Cameras are designed to be operable with just one hand, you might not like that, but then they've done their marketing and other people find it a huge benefit. Mirror lock up is selectable with just one button on the 5D MkII it's called live view.


----------



## WarStreet (Jul 28, 2011)

Live view is better than mirror-lockup for vibration reduction, and you have the benefit to have the frame visible on the lcd when enabled rather than nothing. 


check this out for the vibration reduction difference :

http://krebsmicro.com/Canon_EFSC/index.html


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 28, 2011)

motorhead said:


> I detest the Canon method of hiding things away in the Custom Menu. I can never remember the correct sequence of fiddly little buttons to press , much preferring a dedicated button for one or maybe two jobs even if it makes the body seem "cluttered". It's OK to hide things in the CF list that might never be used, but routine adjustments need to be immediately accessible.



Ok, for you MLU is a 'routine adjustment'. For my friend, Bob, it's not. My cousin Mary likes to use AEB much of the time - so, where's her button for that? For me, Flash sync speed in Av mode is something I change quite frequently - so, Canon should put a dedicated button on the back for that, right? 

Obviously, the point is that one person's 'routine adjustment' is something another person may never use. As an example, there's a dedicated WB button, which I suppose makes sense, but since I shoot in RAW and apply a custom WB in post, that button is useless as far as I am concerned. But maybe you use it all the time.

Here's a question - have you set up the My Menu function? You can register several settings to My Menu, sort them as you like, and then set Display from My Menu to Enable, which means when you press the Menu button the My Menu comes up (regardless of the menu where you last left off). That way, you can quickly select whatever is a routine adjustment for you, without needing a fiddly sequence of button presses.


----------



## motorhead (Jul 28, 2011)

neuroanatomist,

My aging 30D has none of the bells and whistles of the more recent bodies and it does not offer "My Menu".

But as you say, we are all different, so why not offer a round half dozen buttons that can be pre-programmed to do whatever the user should decide? Sounds perfectly feasable to me.

But I was fascinated to read that live-view does not use the full focal plane shutter! Is that its standard operating procedure or something that can only be accessed via the CF functions?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 28, 2011)

motorhead said:


> But I was fascinated to read that live-view does not use the full focal plane shutter! Is that its standard operating procedure or something that can only be accessed via the CF functions?



Via C.Fn on Live View-capable xxD and xD bodies (and you need to set Mode 2 for electronic first curtain). It's used by default (and cannot be disabled) for Live View in xxxD/Rebel bodies.


----------



## WarStreet (Jul 28, 2011)

motorhead said:


> But I was fascinated to read that live-view does not use the full focal plane shutter! Is that its standard operating procedure or something that can only be accessed via the CF functions?



I forgot you have the 30D, which from the mail of Chuck Westfall, it seems that it lacks this feature. 

Try to look at it in a positive way, when you get the 5DIII, you know you can use this feature and you can do so with a dedicated button  

EDIT: Although the live-view is better, with smaller magnifications, the difference will be smaller. I did some fast rough test with a 1500mm telescope and during that period I believed it was better (but it could be that I have imagined it !)


----------



## RuneL (Jul 29, 2011)

Benhider said:


> I know this is possibly not the perfect place to discuss this, but I've had such bad experience with cps and and sick of the focus issues with my 5d mark ii that I've seriously thought about switching to nikon.
> 
> I own 2 x 5D mark ii's, 16-35 2.8ii, 24-105, 70-200 2.8 ISii, 50 1.2 and 24 1.4.
> 
> ...



Well, by all means, do it. Or get a 1Ds if you want proper focus. the 5D is crappy regarding that.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 29, 2011)

RuneL said:


> the 5D is crappy regarding that.



Wow. The 5D is crappy. You've also said that the 24-70 and 24-105 are pieces of crap. How do we ever manage to take a decent picture?


----------



## UncleFester (Jul 30, 2011)

I like to see a dedicated button for preset shutter speeds which would work particularly well for telephoto lenses.
Something where I could rock back and forth between low for pans and high for stopping motion. That way I could just leave the Set button for quality and not have to bump around and re-select in that menu.


----------



## recon photography (Jul 30, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> RuneL said:
> 
> 
> > the 5D is crappy regarding that.
> ...



i think he was referring to the auto focus


----------



## bikersbeard (Jul 30, 2011)

Theres for's and against on each system, you say about auto focus on the 5DII being crap, i had a go on a D3 in a studio and found my 7D focused way quicker  and the other night inside my 5DII locked on better than my 7D, 7D was hunting were as the 5DII got it 1st time, im happy with the 5D focus.. ;-)

Have to admit i was thinking of switching but TBH if you've invested in a load of gear i dont see the point, youll get great results from either camera / system.. one of my best photos ive ever taken was on a disposable 35mm Â£5.99 camera...

Speaking to some Pro's the only reason they have switched from canon to nikon is for the ISO performance of the pro nikons for wedding photography.. one said if his subject was sports, he'd switch to canon at an instant..

Get what your needs are for...


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Jul 31, 2011)

bikersbeard said:


> Theres for's and against on each system, you say about auto focus on the 5DII being crap, i had a go on a D3 in a studio and found my 7D focused way quicker  and the other night inside my 5DII locked on better than my 7D, 7D was hunting were as the 5DII got it 1st time, im happy with the 5D focus.. ;-)


With the same lens?


----------



## bikersbeard (Jul 31, 2011)

no, it wasnt.. the 5DII had the 100mm2.8L and the 7D had 15-85mm, not saying the 5DII is as good as 7D but was expecting a bit worse the way peeps go on about the 5D, was really surprised how slow the D3 was though..


----------



## Haydn1971 (Jul 31, 2011)

Surely the f2.8 lens attached to the 5D would be make focusing better than the 15-85mm which if a similar focal length of about 62.5mm would be at f5.6 ?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 31, 2011)

Haydn1971 said:


> Surely the f2.8 lens attached to the 5D would be make focusing better than the 15-85mm which if a similar focal length of about 62.5mm would be at f5.6 ?



The complaint about autofocusing with the 5D is the tracking speed for swiftly moving objects. It takes a advanced AF system to deal with that. The outer focus points do not work as well as sports cameras either.

The 5d using the center point, is extremely accurate, and very good in low light. So you have a camera designed for one purpose and those who think it should have been designed for a different type of use.

I use my 1D MK III for sports, and am still evaluating my 7D, but it looks good for sports as well. I've used my 5D for sports and had no issues, but that is not its best use. I just happened to have it with me when we visited by Niece and found the was in a track meet, so I took a few photos with my 5D MK II and 70-200mm f/4 IS. It tracked the runners coming toward me just fine.


5D MK II with 70-200mm f/4 IS








Here is a 1:1 section of the above image.


----------



## Haydn1971 (Jul 31, 2011)

Bikersbeard was suggesting the 7D was worse than the 5D... The AF on the 7D is more up to date, my question really was is that due to the lower light collecting ability of the lesser lens used on the 7D


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 31, 2011)

Haydn1971 said:


> Bikersbeard was suggesting the 7D was worse than the 5D... The AF on the 7D is more up to date, my question really was is that due to the lower light collecting ability of the lesser lens used on the 7D



The 7D AF is very good. It is designed to allow tracking and keeping focus for fast moving subjects, certainly much better than my 5D MK II. 

However, in low light, a FF camera with its larger AF sensor and larger main sensor gathers more light and will function at a lower light level. Its the same for other FF camera bodies.

This is assuming that we are comparing the cameras with the same lens under the same situation. Using a f.1,4 lens on a 7D versus a f/5.6 on a 5D MK II might give opposite results.

Remember, we are talkiing about photography where it is almost totally dark. The kind of low light where a 7D would not get a good image even if it did autofocus. Night clubs, Theatre, very dark.

From my testing, the 7D can focus quite well in low light up to the point where the sensor only produces very noisy images that you would not like anyway, so I'm not knockiing it, it is well balanced. But, when my 7D quits for lack of light, my 5D MK II is still going strong.


----------



## Haydn1971 (Jul 31, 2011)

I was having just this problem tonight in very low light, about an hour after sunset, trying to focus my 15-85mm at 85mm (f5.6) on my 450D with some fill flash, ended up pulling the 50mm f1.4 out, which worked much better, even though it wasn't as tight as I was wanting.

Good job I wasn't having the same trouble with the BBQ though ! Yum !


----------



## UncleFester (Aug 1, 2011)

Haydn1971 said:


> I was having just this problem tonight in very low light, about an hour after sunset, trying to focus my 15-85mm at 85mm (f5.6) on my 450D with some fill flash, ended up pulling the 50mm f1.4 out, which worked much better, even though it wasn't as tight as I was wanting.
> 
> Good job I wasn't having the same trouble with the BBQ though ! Yum !



Were you using AI focus with flash?


----------



## AdamJ (Aug 1, 2011)

AI Servo AF is the one area that disappoints me about my 5DII. I don't expect 1DIV performance from it but I think I'm within my rights to expect it to do a better job of tracking my nine-year-old daughter in a sports day race.

I'm probably a typical 5DII user - an amateur enthusiast with only one camera body who can't afford either a second body or a 1D/s. Given these constraints, I don't want my camera to be a landscape / portrait camera, as the 5DII is now widely viewed. I want my one and only body to be a good all-rounder. And it would be, if only the AF were more sophisticated.

I've never tried a 7D but on paper, it's AF looks a lot better. I hope the 5DIII gets that system.

Anyway, in summary I do understand the OP's frustration but I agree with the comments of others who say the grass is always greener. What you might gain in some aspects by switching to Nikon, you lose in others.


----------



## motorhead (Aug 1, 2011)

Once I had learnt the vital lesson that I had to keep the AF point nailed on the target at all times with no drifting off, I have been very happy with the AI Servo AF on my 30D. I'm surprised to hear that the 5D11 is not as good.

Why should that be? I don't understand how full frame or crop can make any difference to the mechanics of the operation.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 1, 2011)

motorhead said:


> Once I had learnt the vital lesson that I had to keep the AF point nailed on the target at all times with no drifting off, I have been very happy with the AI Servo AF on my 30D. I'm surprised to hear that the 5D11 is not as good.
> 
> Why should that be? I don't understand how full frame or crop can make any difference to the mechanics of the operation.



Most actual owners say its fine, and, yes i own one. However, it is not and was not intended to be a sports camera, and the really fast moving sports will be a challange. The image I posted above was one of a series of images taken as the runners neared the hurdles, and all were in reasonably sharp focus, so the 5d was tracking fast moving runners coming at me just fine. If I'd been really close, it probably would have been tougher, since there would be less depth of field to coverup and slight misfocus.

Rent one and try it, it is a super popular camera in its range for a reason.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 1, 2011)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> If I'd been really close, it probably would have been tougher, since there would be less depth of field to coverup and slight misfocus.



Or, if you'd been using a lens faster than f/4. I've taken bursts of a toddler running toward me with the 85L at f/1.2 on my 7D, and had ~80% of the shots focused on the eyes as I intended. With the 5DII i nthe same situation, I'd be lucky if even _one_ of the shots was in focus.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 1, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > If I'd been really close, it probably would have been tougher, since there would be less depth of field to coverup and slight misfocus.
> ...



In the case of the 85L, fast AF might be more lens limited than camera limited. You are more expert on the 85l, what do you think?

The 70-200mm f/4 IS has quite fast AF. Since the photo was captured at ISO 100 f/8 and 1/320 sec on a very bright day, a f/2.8 or a f/1.2 lens would not have changed much, I'd still have kept to f/8, since I did not want shallow depth of field, but to get all the runners in focus. I could have easily increased ISO to 200 or 400 and used a faster shutter speed, and I'd probably do that in the future.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 1, 2011)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> In the case of the 85L, fast AF might be more lens limited than camera limited. You are more expert on the 85l, what do you think?
> 
> The 70-200mm f/4 IS has quite fast AF. Since the photo was captured at ISO 100 f/8 and 1/320 sec on a very bright day, a f/2.8 or a f/1.2 lens would not have changed much, I'd still have kept to f/8, since I did not want shallow depth of field, but to get all the runners in focus. I could have easily increased ISO to 200 or 400 and used a faster shutter speed, and I'd probably do that in the future.



Yes, the 85L has slow AF (despite a USM motor, it's a lot of glass to move and an old USM design). But in this case, it's still camera-limited. The issue isn't really AF speed as much as AI Servo AF _accuracy_. Shooting at a narrower aperture (whether by necessity due to a slow lens, or by choice as in your case) means the deeper DoF will mask any errors in focus accuracy. I have the same issue with my 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II and 135mm f/2L, which from a lens perspective both have blazingly fast AF - in AI Servo, the AF on the 5DII cannot keep up with a subject running toward or away from the camera with a wide aperture, whereas the 7D can do so much more effectively. Yes, I could stop down for more DoF to compensate, but when I'm shooting just one subject, I usually want the separation from background that comes from the wide aperture.


----------



## UncleFester (Aug 1, 2011)

It's the action running out of the dof faster than the camera can keep up.


----------

