>bought a tamron 70-200 vc usd for my 5d2
>great lens
>now I am switching to Nikon (due to better lenses, tougher cameras)
my 70-200 tamron which I've always kept in a ziplock bag with silica gels in a drybox has fucking like 6 pieces of dust inside
>a few right god damn behind the front element, a couple specs behind the rear element
How in the fuck does this happen to an internally focusing lens with no push-pull zoom which I have hardly ever used (maybe less than 1,000 shots since buying it 9 months ago
I bought it new 1,000 dollars on a sale with a 1 year tamron warranty, and a 5 year store warranty which apparently doesn't cover costs of dust cleanings.
I wouldn't mind selling this lens for 700 dollars or something but, anything less would make me feel horrible, wat do
> has fucking like 6 pieces of dust inside
Oh no!
Get a fucking clue, internal focusing lenses still have components that cause vacuums within the lens, that sucks air in and dust with it. Dust doesn't make a blind bit of difference and only serves to infuriate autists
http://kurtmunger.com/dirty_lens_articleid35.html
There are several articles on this, my 80-200 2.8 L has plenty of dust particles inside it and makes no difference to IQ.
>now I am switching to Nikon (due to better lenses, tougher cameras)
>tougher cameras than canon
>bought a tamron 70-200 vc
>now I am switching to Nikon (due to better lenses
>now I am switching to Nikon (due to better lenses, tougher cameras)
have any of you felt a nikon d3 or d700 and compared it to the plasticy lightweight shit that is a canon dslr? no, I'd assume also canon pancakes are trash
>>2855537
are you real person
>>2855550
I didn't make canon shooters mad all of a sudden did I? just go hold a nikon d810, d700, d3, this isn't an argument anyone ever has. Lol at students who buy one canon dslr their favorite youtuber uses and believes they know everything about photo gear xD
>>2855576
lol, every faggot with the money to buy one is now an aerial photographer. Serves you right!
>>2855576
There are lots of canonfags on this board and they get butthurt easily when confronted with reality.
The only thing canon has are lenses, get over it shills
>>2855489
>6 tiny bitty little dust
stop the press!
![[HorribleSubs] Kuma Miko - 03 [720p].mkv_snapshot_19.39_[2016.04.24_19.21.33].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/4K3nzUS.jpg "[HorribleSubs] Kuma Miko - 03 [720p].mkv_snapshot_19.39_[2016.04.24_19.21.33].jpg")
>>2855500
>and it's not a pentax
If Canon cameras are so easily broken then how come the vast majority of award winning photojournalists use them???
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Photographer User Image-Specific Properties:
>>2855576
>>2855611
Canons are better built than nikons until you go to the super pro size range, then they're equal. Nikon is known to build half-plastic frames while Canon used to go full magnesium even on prosumer bodies (i.e. 50D)
Pic related is still the situation - this was 7d vs D7000, now it's the same for the D500. Nikon doesn't put nearly the same amount of thought into camera resilience until you reach the Canon 1DX equivalents.
And that, plus Canon's lead in autofocus tech and better tele lenses, is why you'll more often than not see Canons in fields where your camera is likely to see abuse.
This is not to say that hurr Canon is better, most people won't see the differene - if you throw your camera from a drone it's going to die be it full metal or full plastic, so might as well take the Nikon shortcut. But for people that see regular abuse on their gear, Canon is the way to go.
>>2855686
forgot the picture.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties:
>now I am switching to Nikon (due to better lenses, tougher cameras)
>>2855686
D7000 isn't really comparable to the 7D in build, the Nikon equivalent would be a D300 or D500. The D300 is a full magnesium chassis and the D500 is magnesium and CFRP.
Also Nikon has lately started making portions of newer bodies out of CFRP rather than magnesium. It's a composite material which is far from what you would probably think of when you hear the word "plastic"
>>2855687
That filename is wrong by the way. That's definitely a D7000, pic related is a D700.
I'm not going to argue anything about which company makes sturdier cameras or anything though because there's no way to prove anything except for a bunch of anecdotes. Maybe you're right that Canon is better, I don't know.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Width 799 Image Height 600
>>2855707
>>2855708
>canon fag compares two cameras from different tiers
>nikon fag posts the correct camera
>M-M-MUH DAMAGE CONTROL
Now compare the D7000 to the 60D...
>Polycarbonate resin with glass fibre on aluminum chassis
>>2855717
How Canon shooters feel knowing that Canon is becoming a meme gear?
>>2855679
Canon is marketing.
>>2855717
DELETE THIS REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
>>2855971
I don't think they give a shit? My camera works, I can get great lenses for good prices. Not sure how much more you can want really.
>>2855707
>the D500 is magnesium and CFRP.
Magnesium and plastic. Yeah it's reinforced, cool, it's not a full magnesium body.
And yeah the file was misnamed, I know it's a D7000, since I wrote it in the freaking post.
Nikons are built worse than Canons. That's a fact. Deal with it.
>>2855971
But surely professionals know to look past marketing and make a decision based on more important things like availability of services and support as well as reliability and functionality of their purchase. Amateurs my fall for marketing gimmicks but professionals left Nikon when they lost the AF war and Nikon has never been able to sway them all back because they just aren't as good as canon in enough ways to justify the switch
