Are there Canons that handle like the F100?

Pray tell, what are you missing among the Nikon primes?

 

You mean that the list below doesn't give you enough choice? OK, so there isn't an 85mm f1.2, but ..................

http://www.graysofwestminster.co.uk/products/new.php

 

Always build you system around the lenses you need to use for your personal vision, then attach a box to them called a camera.

That said, Nikon has always had better ergonomics than Canon in my humble opinion. It's tough to top the beauty of the F100, other than the F6.

I don't recall a Canon body as nicely designed. That said, what Canon Primes are you thinking about since Nikon's glass is pretty complete as far as choices. And please don't nit pick between f/1.4 verses f/1.2!

 

Sometimes the grass really is greener...

Stop drooling on the counter, boy! In answer to your question, the two EOS most like the F100 (and I've never held an F100) are the 3 and 1V. The 3 can be had rather cheap these days, and is quite a nice camera. The 1V, comparable to the F6, is still expensive.

However, you have quite a nice camera in the F100 already, and Nikon makes great lenses. Why would you want to switch?

 

Yes, I can't say that I'm missing the EOS primes I can't use on my Nikons.

Plus, there are some amazing Nikkors I can use on my Nikons, natively... such as the gorgeous 105/2.5. (So what if it doesn't autofocus?) My F100 and F5 look gorgeous with that lens.

Not to mention, all but the G lenses are backward compatible with the manual bodies like the FM2n...

 

I think my Elan 7ne handled very similarlly to my current F100, but interms of build quality the Eos 3 (never used it myself) will probably match up the most. I tried a Eos 1V one time and did not like the control layout at all. But as others have said, what are you missing in Nikon???

 

If you really want to change your system in order to have better prime lenses, go for Leica. But Canon?!!!????

 

The problem with those drool-worthy, fast wide-angle Canon prime lenses is the price. I would love to have the 35mm/f1.4, but for the time being I will have to be content with the f2 version. If I searched my soul, I'm not sure that the extra speed is really necessary for most of the shooting that I do. It's more about sex appeal.

 

I saw the Canon Elan II years ago when I worked at a camera store (which shall remain nameless); I was impressed by that camera's handling with the vertical grip, and I almost bought one. I've never done a side-by-side comparison with a Nikon F100, but if you absolutely have to have an EOS body for access to Canon's lenses, the Elan II might work and is not expensive.

Ultimately, I didn't buy one myself because I discovered that you must completely remove, as in unscrew from the body, the vertical grip to change batteries. By contrast, the F100 grip has a sliding tray, which is much nicer and lets me carry a spare battery tray ready to go.

 

Canon primes are not any better than Nikkor equivalents, and vice versa. You matter more than the equipment. I've used both systems, and I still suck. I prefer Nikon because of the access to older lenses with superb quality and construction. The older FD lenses won't mount on EOS bodies, except for some of the telephotos with an adaptor.

That you have bonded with the F100 is a good reason to stick with it.

 

Huh? Scroll down to the wide angles and normals here: http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/lens/af/index.htm

They have wide angle primes from 14 - 35 / f2. I believe they still offer manual focus lenses. That's just new stuff; the used market is flush with fine Nikkor lenses.

 

Something that might be a parallel to your F100 would be an EOS 3, although the EOS 3 is made of plastic(damn good plastic though). The F100 and the EOS 3 are at about the same product level, you should also try the EOS 1v, which is the highest model, its really durable and its my next camera.

 

I have been beating up a plastic EOS 3 for a decade now. Still going strong! Interestingly enough the only camera I ever destroyed with a drop of one foot was a Nikon F2! So much for indestructible. Basically my point is the camera means nothing in the end. It is just a box to which the lenses attach. Both Nikon and Canon make great cameras, more than anyone would ever need.

 

And?

AF-S is of primary benefit with long lenses where Nikon can install motors with larger torque than the motor built into the body.

The only advantage of AF-S on shorter lenses is the ability to instantly override autofocus. However, most AF-S lenses lack aperture rings (some have them but few new AF-S lenses have them) so you lose backward compatibility to get it.

As for updated formulas, prime lenses have been nearly perfected. In some extremely exotic lenses more modern formulae might be of help, but unless you are talking about extremely fast lenses or extremely wide or short focal lengths, you aren't likely to receive tangible benefit.

As an example, the AF 85/1.4D may be an "old" formula, and it may lack AF-S, but those who use it probably don't care. The proof is in the pudding, so to speak, and this lens delivers.

If you really want AF-S/USM functionality in all your lenses, Nikon is probably not your platform, but you give up eyepoint relief and ergonomics to get it.

 

Yep, and I think Nikon got the design of the 105 right back in the 60s. I don't think the basic design has changed since then. They've added multicoating and AF, etc. but little else.

 

What, like VR? :rolleyes:

And what of the 14-24?

http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/nikon_14_24mm_1/nikon14_24mm_a.html

There is absolutely nothing to apologize for in the Nikon lineup. Shoot ZF primes if you really feel you must...

 

What, Canon has something that stops subjects from moving?

 

The 17-35 is a sweet lens. I love mine.