From: Harald.Brandt@eua.ericsson.se (Harald Brandt)
Subject: Re: Canon 10s Vs Nikon N90, Which one?
Organization: Ellemtel Utvecklings AB, Sweden
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 16:15:27 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.031906.10270@cbnewsh.cb.att.com> 
kram@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (kameswar.r.ati) writes:
> For myself, I have narrowed down my choice to the Canon
> 10s and the Nikon N90. However I cannot reconcile to the
> 2 to 1  price difference in the 10s and a N90. For example
> 
> Canon 10s  - Body + 28-105USM lens =  $570-590
> Nikon N90  - Body + 28-105  lens   =  $1100
> 
> I do take a lot of pictures of a variety of subjects, and forsee
> expanding my horizon into photography semi seriously. Obviously
> I would like to buy the 10s because it is so much affordable
> but then I do not mind spending the extra bucks if the N90 is
> clearly superior in picture quality, len quality, overall
> construction etc. Also am I comparing apples to oranges? 

Since you can think of spending some more money, do at least consider the 
new A2 or A2E (USA models, A2E = EOS 5 in the rest of the world). Then you 
get something unbeatable: fast, quiet, 5 focus spots, flash with zoom 
capability, exposure and flash exposure connected to AF point, good spot 
meter etc.  And at least for me, fits very good in my hand.  I just 
purchased the EOS 5 (500 pounds in the UK), so I do not have experience 
yet with how the slides come out.

Furthermore, in my opinion, Nikon is for professionals with a large quiver 
of lenses and thousands of hours of working habits which they don't want 
to re-learn (like f-stop ring, the amount of manual focus adjustment to 
compensate for depth-of-focus etc etc). But for an amateur, or a prof who 
starts fairly fresh, there is no need to look back, and Canon is 
exploiting new technology to the best, I think. Of all the lens tests I 
have seen, Canon seems on the average to beat everything else: their cheap 
lenses with plastic mount look (and perhaps feel) ugly, but perform 
optically just as good as average lenses from Nikon, Minolta etc, while 
their expensive L series beat everything - including most Leitz!  

I bought Canon, despite I had Nikon stuff (Nikormat, 24, 35, 85, 200, vivitar 
70-210, plus accessories),  mainly because Canon aoutofocus is much better 
(not even the new F90 comes close) and bacause I really wanted the DEP program of Canon, and for built-in flash, and all my Nikon stuff was so old that most of it did not even have the ai-ring (except for the 24 which was converted after a damage, and the vivitar, but the vivitar I wouldn't use anyway, 
since for a tele, I really want autofocus, and with an old 24  I would not 
get matrix measurement), and the F90 is 135 g heavier than the EOS 5 
(which for me is a very strong minus).  Nikon feels very solid, but I have 
not seen any evidence they are better in this respect relative Canon. I 
suspect the extra weight is more for the feel than for long lasting.  The 
EOS 5 is unfortunately about 100 g heavier than EOS 10, and it is also 
higher, but in return it has an excellent ergonomy in my hand - especially 
in vertical format, where I have the unusual habit of holding the shutter 
release downward. (If you are interested, I bought: 28-105/3.5-4.5 USM, 
24-35/2.8L, 200/2.8L, Extender X1.4.  Well it WAS expensive!!  I bought it 
in the UK and got the sales tax back (17.5%)).

/Harald

Phone: +46 8 727 39 55  Fax: +46 8 749 05 94
Ellemtel Utvecklings AB
Box 1505
S-125 25 Alvsjo
Sweden
Newsgroups: rec.photo