Mythbusters: Is a Nikon really costlier compared to a Canon?

[hitanshu]

I'm in the market for a DSLR. I am currently leaning towards a 40D - simply on price/performance ratio (6.5fps!).

I was oft quoted and warned about Nikon prices. While I did find that Canon has a more vibrant and active market for second hand cameras and to some extent lenses - the price difference does not really exist. Its ~10-15% mostly. Much lesser than the premium a Honda gets over a Hyundai. I wouldn't say why it is this way or should be - but I submit that the pricing should NOT decide the choice of system!

Here is a short comparo attached. Would really appreciate your comments.
432

[KrishnenduKes]

Discussion Approved

[nelson_sanjoy]

I was recently surprised when Nikon hiked the price of the ever popular 70-200 f/2.8 VR and now its 2400$ I guess where as Canon's counterpart costs around 1600 (with the recent 200$ discount ).

[Aryan]

I was always in the market for Canon, and hence I did not even bother about finding out the prices of Nikon! :D

@Tau: Good to know you are contemplating on getting a D-SLR, and a 40D at that! :)

[synn]

The 70-200 VR and the 70-200 f2.8 IS costs the same here, last time I checked. The Nikon is a couple of hundreds cheaper in some shops, actually.

That said, this lens is out of production and would be replaced by a new model in a couple of months. No idea about pricing.

[hitanshu]

Interesting everyone's picked up on the ONE lens i missed.

But otherwise, in the stuff I can *afford* - Nikon's 10-15-20% costlier, which frankly isn't much of a dealbreaker really!

Most of us can choose either system without breaking the bank!

[synn]

Exactly.

It amuses me when people pull out the "You can't afford decent Nikkor glass" routine. Yes, you can. We're not talking Leicas or 'Blads here for god's sakes!

Another factor to consider is that any decent Nikkor lens(and that's almost all of them, barring a few duds) holds its value well in the used market, so you're kinda getting your money back.