And back to Nikon again...

So I took my Canon 5D swimming with me at the end of the last post. Bad idea.

It's been sent away to Canon for an assessment, but I can tell you now, it's one dead unit. And not only the body, but the battery grip that was attached to it, together with the 28-135mm IS lens. All kabloey!

The insurance company has already forewarned me that I'm only likely to get $2000NZ for everything, since it wasn't itemized out on our content policy (there's a trap for the uninitiated). So, of course, now my mind starts mulling over what I can actually get for 2k.

Never one to shy away from a complete system re-think, I'm now actually favoring a move back to Nikon. More specifically, the Nikon D2x.

Sexy, sexy, sexy...  :-)

Why the D2x, and not the D3x? Well yeah, the D3x would be nice - but it's also way over my price range. We are talking about twice the price, and I just can't justify that kind of expense on a body.

As it is, to make the switch I will have to sell all my accumulated Canon gear - and not necessarily replace it all with equivalent Nikon gear. I'll win some, and loose some in the process.

The money I get for the insurance claim, together with selling my 70-200mm f4L, 20-35mm, 50mm f1.8, 20D body with grip, 18-55mm EF-S, 70-300mm, 580EX flash and 420EX flash, should give me about $4500NZ to 'play' with.

A mint cond. D2x body will hit the $1.5k mark (or thereabouts), and if I add to that a Nikkor 17-55mm f2.8 (for about the same price) - together with an SB700 flash and Nikkor 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 VR, then that will about do it. Not a bad kit really.

Not bad from the back either!

What will I do for a back-up when I shoot weddings? The same thing when I owned the Nikon D300 - I'll take my wife's D70.

Why the D2x over a D300 or newer D7000? Well, that's a great question, and one that I'm still struggling with. Having already owned the D300, I know what a fantastic camera it is. I'd be more than happy with another one. And the new D7000 is getting good raps from reviewers and users alike - with outstanding high ISO performance, great handling, and a lot of 'pro' features borrowed from the D3. Sounds like the obvious choice, does it not?

Well maybe. But for me, the allure of a 'real' pro camera has its appeal. At 12.4MP it's exactly where I want to be in the megapixel race and, needless to say, it's built like the proverbial brick .....house! It's questionable at high ISO's over 800 - but I don't shoot over 800 with any camera (even when I owned the D300), and having NO video at all suits me right down to the ground. And just look at it... it's gorgeous!

When I wrote reviews for D-Photo, I had a pretty good relationship with the boss at Nikon NZ, and he loaned me a D1x (I think it was) for a few months. It was only 4MP (from memory), but the images were gorgeous, and I fell in lust with that camera. I didn't want to give it back to Nikon, but in the end they had another use for it, and we parted company. I expect the same lust for the D2x - even if it is 'old' technology - and am pretty excited about the prospect of owning such a beast!

Of course the other alternative is to look out for a Canon 1D MkII for probably around the same price and just stick with all the lenses I already have. It's a possibility, I suppose. But where's the fun in that?