One of the reasons why I've been fixated on upgrading my Canon rather than the Nikon is that a lot of later Nikon bodies don't support earlier autofocus Nikon lenses, such as my favourite zoom and the more affordable 50mm lenses. But having been disappointed with the Eos 500D I tried, I'm thinking through how much it would cost to stick with Nikon and upgrade or go over to Canon, and it looks like I am probably better off sticking with Nikon as my main system.
The big thing I'd missed is that there are some Nikons close to the specification of the 500D that do support the older autofocus - the D90, for example - and aren't hideously expensive; I can get a D90 body for about £20 more than the 500D. This leaves me with three pretty good lenses plus extension tubes etc. and no urgent need to upgrade anything else. The big one I don't have at the moment is a good 50mm, I've played with a 35mm as my standard lens and it doesn't really work for me.
So for Nikon the upgrade path would be to get a D90, then sell my current D50 and look for a good 50mm, then sell off my Nikon 35mm lens and probably the Canon 50mm lens. I'd probably come out well ahead on the lenses overall.
For Canon the path would be buy the body, then look at upgrading at least my main zoom to a good macro model - say £100+ after trading in the existing zoom. I'd recoup most of that by trading in equivalent Nikon gear and would probably break even.
There isn't a lot in it money-wise, but in terms of hassle the Nikon route is probably easier. I'm going to think on it for a few days, and make a decision next week.
Also posted at http://ffutures.dreamwidth.org/2090588.html, where there are comments. Please comment here or there using OpenID.
|comments: Leave a comment|