thomas_vanagt Posted February 27, 2003 Share Posted February 27, 2003 Naji, I am a very happy canon user, but sometimes I wish I had nikon. So here are the 'weak points' of canon in my opinion: - mirror lockup sucks (as mentioned before) - no manual body - expensive 180mm macro - white lenses (!): for candid shots, the white 70-200 and 300 are a nightmare - no eos bellows!!! - no cheap second hand primes (I don't need AF for wide angles, so if I could find a mf 24mm for 100$, that would be great, and with nikon, it's possible) - image quality of the consumer lenses. You really need primes or L-glass to match the optical quality of nikon - no spotmeter on 'cheap back-up bodies' (eg elan series) Hope you're happy to see canon users do know the weak points of their gear. Thomas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rendy_setiadjie Posted March 8, 2003 Share Posted March 8, 2003 Charlie, My personal reason moving to Canon is the technological standpoint. Canon holds 3 keys in digital camera technology development : Image Sensor (CCD/CMOS), Image Processor & Lenses. I also only have Nikon FM2 manual body so the switching is not the big issue for me. If I read about your own equipment today, just see and wait the new full frame Nikon D-SLR. Do not move to Canon systems! It will spend a lot of money for investment. Today I have Canon EOS-3 and Powershot G3 which I purchased to replace my Nikon FM2. My conclusion of Canon systems advantage are : * USM technology (very quite AF operation) * Image Stabilized Lenses * Low light capability for digicam prosumer (Compare to Nikon CP4500,5000,5700) * Cheaper price Canon disadvantages : * Flash systems is quite complex compare to Nikon * Accessories availability (Not so complete compare to Nikon everywhere in the world) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikas_leekha Posted March 26, 2003 Share Posted March 26, 2003 I am begineer in this field Photography. i am pretty confused between Canon EOS 300 V or NIKON F65. Cam any body guide which one is better for a start up... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_aban Posted July 18, 2003 Share Posted July 18, 2003 Many people have made very good comments but I just like to add mine. One thing that I have found very interesting is that more amateurs with Canon cameras tend to use third party lenses than with Nikon cameras. That is due to the fact that majority of Canon's amateur lenses are totally in separate category than their very well made "L" series. And I mean both optically and physically. We can compare 24-85 ED nikkor with EF 24-85 or 28-105 D with 28-105 USM and so on. You can go to any photography related site and see for yourself. Yes the "L" series lenses are great but so are Nikon's similar lenses. The reason for incompatibilities in Nikon line is due to Nikon's philosophy of maintaining upward compatibility as much as possible. To their credit, every Nikon lens could be mounted on any Nikon body. Yes, there are limitations but you could still use your old lenses. I have Canon FD lenses that can not be mounted on any EOS body (a real limitation in my opinion). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photographicsafaris Posted July 26, 2003 Share Posted July 26, 2003 Charlie as a Nature photographer I know where you are coming from. Luckily I changed from Nikon to Canon at the Manual to Auto focus stage and Happily run the two together. Canon are streets ahead with their R&D, they are generations into the Image stabilisation whereas Nikon are months into it. Do yourself a favour, take an EOS 3 and a 100 - 400 LUIS Lens out for a test drive, put a roll of film into it, and burn it out hand held as quickly as possible on full stabilisation and Autofocus on some ludicrous subject, like aeroplanes. Then develop the film and answer the question yourself. With my canon a 400mm lens can be handheld for moving subjects. With My Nikon I cannot say that. When swinging your lens photographing a Cheetah kill, you remain with your subject fluidly. G Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jemini_joseph Posted July 27, 2003 Share Posted July 27, 2003 <HTML> <BODY> I've tried the Nikkor AF-S 24-120mm lens first time. So far I also didn't pay much atention towards IS. But now after trying VR I've reallised that it's very very important. See how it performs with hand holding.<BR> <IMG SRC="http://www.color-pictures.com/images/220_4_24-120-VR-SELF%20FACE.jpg"><BR> If the pictures is soft it's because of my LS-30 scanner. I couldn't believe it. 1/6 sec at 85mm. Now I understand why canon users are so proud of their equipment. <BR> I'll have two reason to move to canon. 1) IS:- Since Nikon started making long teles with AF-S and VR together it's not a big consideration for me. Since I cannot afford canon's 500 IS, I have no reason to move there. I hope by the time I'll be able to afford IS, Nikon will make a lot of them.. 2) Price: - Nikon is still pricy. Why Nikon is not coming down in price. Nikons 300/2.8 AF-S lens is around 4300 and Canon's 300/2.8 USM IS lens is around 3800. For the price of a Nikon lens I can buy better Canon lens and a descent film body. <BR> <BR> I don't care much about digital now, especially after Nikon has announced new sensor. I'm sure they are right in the competetion. </BODY> </HTML> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted July 27, 2003 Share Posted July 27, 2003 Now that Nikon is having a growing list of VR lenses, IS/VR is not as big a difference between the brands any more, although Nikon is still missing a 500mm and a 600mm VR. It is at those long focal lengths that IMO VR is most useful for me. If you shoot inside a building and cannot use a flash (e.g. church, concert hall), I can see why a 24-120 VR can be very useful. But for nature photography, why do you need to shoot a wide angle at 1/6 sec handheld? If the light is so poor that you need 1/6 sec, you won't get very good images anyway. Or if you are shooting a waterfall at f32 plus ND filter, you are still better off with a tripod. Moreover, how can IS/VR at 400mm help shooting a *moving* subject handheld? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raki_k Posted March 14, 2004 Share Posted March 14, 2004 In response to 'switching to Canon from Nikon', I would like to add a few things. I consider myself a semi- pro (excuse me, I do have a lot of problems with these kind of classification- some amateurs have better understanding of photography than some pros) and my income is primarily from photography. The first camera I have used was Pentax K 1000 and when I got into serious photography I switched to Nikon (news Photography). At that time most pros I knew were using Nikon and hardly anyone used to complain about Nikon. Basically Nikon was considered `THE' camera for pros. The first time I started suffering from this so called "it's greener on the other side syndrome" was when I joined a photography magazine as an assistant to the technical writer. While shooting with both cameras ( Nikon and Canon) st a number of occasions, I found Canon photo quality superior to Nikon. Here I am not talking about features and technicality. I am talking about the over all photo quality in terms of sharpness, color saturation, balance between correctly exposed and under exposed areas etc. Even then I never thought of switching to Canon because I was so used to my Nikon cameras and lenses. It is like ending a relationship/marriage, it's not so easy to shift to another system. After all most photographers are not that rich to change their equipment each time someone introduces a new technology. Also, from my experience of working with a photography magazine, what I found extremely disturbing with Nikon was; Nikon has the worst reputation for being attentive to its customers queries and complaints. If you write to Nikon, you hardly get any replies whereas Canon gets back to you in few days. In this regard I must admit that Minolta and Tamaron are the best- they do care A LOT!!! let me get back to the point- I am seriously thinking of switching to Canon for few reasons- at the same time I do have second thoughts too. Yes, I am in an perpetual dilemma Advantages bad disadvantages of canon and Nikon (correct me if you think I am wrong) Canon: Great photo quality- sometimes it is a bit scary that the picture looks too unreal Nikon: durability, resale value, wide range of accessories. Canon: IS (image stabilization- Nikonians, ought to use this to know the difference!) Nikon: AF illuminator on certain bodies like N 80/ D 70 Canon: AF illuminator is a pop-up flash which is highly irritating and idiotic ( Elan/Eos series ) Nikon: worst customer service Canon: good customer service Canon: A way too rebellious or stupid enough to change camera mounts overnight Nikon: Old lenses are compatible with new "technically advanced¡¨ cameras (although u have to use a handheld light meter) Nikon: price and availability. In the states Canon is cheaper but in Europe/Asia/Africa canon is more expensive. Canon: You find more and more pros switching to Canon whereas you hardly find anyone going back to Nikon 0�º Nikon: Nikonians are outspoken (experimental) enough to talk bad or complain about their equipment whereas you find Canon users always live in this illusion that my gear and pictures are better than yours. This is actually very disturbing. Anyway, the bottom line is the photo quality of Canon. Any suggestions or comments? Please don't tell me it is because of the film and processing No way- I use Fuji ( velvia)while shooting landscapes, Kodak for portraits and for architecture I use Kodak VS. Thanks for reading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
natures-pencil Posted June 7, 2004 Share Posted June 7, 2004 1. All Canon bodies have mirror pre-lock. 2. All EOS lenses work (no loss of function) with all EOS bodies. 3. Most EOS bodies are very quiet. 4. 24mm TS-E (also 45mm and 90mm). 5. 65mm MP-E 1x - 5x macro. 6. 17-40mm f/4. 7. 70-200mm f/4. 8. You can build a fully capable set of lenses that ALL take the same filter size (e.g. 20mm f/2.8, 24mm TS-E, 28-135mm IS, 180mm f/3.5 macro all take 72mm filters). 9. In its digital lineup Canon has the 11Mp full frame 1Ds, and the 8Mp 1D Mk II with just a 1.3x focal length magnification factor as well as two 6Megapixel offerings with 1.6x factor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg_campbell1 Posted June 7, 2004 Share Posted June 7, 2004 N.M. wrote: "Maybe Canon just attracts people who are easy to please and pleased to conform." LOL! Is this supposed to be some sort of lame troll? I've seen 8 year old kids write better ones. [Rant alert] As for Charlie's original post. How many of you actually own an IS lens??? How many own a 1Ds "It's got 11MP and a FULL FRAME!!!! It's ONLY 8 thousand freaking dollars!" Gimme a break. It's a camera, not a car. For the VAST majority of photographers and shooting situations, one system will work just as well as the next. Hell, for that matter, I don't see any serious drawbacks to my 20 year old T-90/FD 'system.' When Nikon, Canon, or whoever eventually poop out a ~11MP DSLR for around a grand, I'll consider "switching." Until then, "FHOOEY!" on the marketecture, hype, and advertizing garbage that pollute photographers' thinking. Ken Rockwell preaches: "The camera does not matter!!" (http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/notcamera.htm) Ya know what?? He's right!! [all clear] -Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now