Canon vs. Nikon

<p>I am just now getting back into cameras.<br>

I had an AE-1 in the 1977-1980 time frame...did some darkroom work, usually from developed negatives. I now have an A-1 and AE1-P.<br>

Anyway.....it seemed like any "event" we were at (race track, rock concert, baseball game, etc etc) most of the pro-photographers used a Nikon Camera. We would see the occasional Canon F1 and A1, but not too many.<br>

In that day, was the Nikon a much "better" camera than the Canon.? Perhaps it could take a beating and hold up better than a Canon.?<br>

Even today those F Series Nikon command a pretty big price.<br>

Thank You</p>

<p>I started off as a newspaper photographer and later a reporter working side by side with photographers. From the 1970s up through some point at least in the 1980s myself and most news photographers I worked with shot almost exclusively Nikon, with an occasional Leica.<br /><br />I think there were two factors at play -- Nikon had the first full-scale 35mm SLR system starting with the Nikon F in 1959 and got the jump on Canon in that regard. Nikon got thousands of news photographers who had previously shot Leica, Nikon or Canon rangefinders to switch to SLRs.<br>

Second was Nikon built on that and had a great marketing program for many years. Third was that once a newspaper or individual photographer had a big investment in bodies, lenses, motor drives, etc., it was not economically practical to switch no matter what Canon did. Newspaper photoraphers generally were required to own their own basic gear but newspapers often had pools of things like super-long telephotos and such that wree expensive, and the pool equipment was Nikon so that kept photographers wedded to Nikon. Same with borrowing equipment back and forth among friends and colleagues.<br /><br />At some point, however, maybe in the later 1980s and certainly by the 1990s, Canon began to catch up and pull ahead. They came out with some innovations ahead of Nikon (I don't know my Canon history well enough to be specific) and began winning over more photographers. Today it's probably 50/50 and maybe has shifted more to Canon. The two brands pay a constant game of leapfrog in getting ahead of each other with the latest innovations and improvements but both are extremely good.</p>

<p>My own conclusion is that if I had Nikon F or F2 and also shot with Canon F1, there would have been no noticeable differences in the photos. I've used the early rigs in HS yearbook (not the F2) and no complaints with either camera.</p>

<p>Les</p>

<br /> Craig -Very interesting info indeed.<br /> Thanks Again<br /> <br />Thanks Leszek.</p>

I am merely an enthusiastic amateur with no special skill. My first SLR was a Canon FT-QL in 1967, a nice system.

Later, I invested in a LN F1. Nikon and Canon are fine systems, but the tie breaker was that Canon orphaned the FD line,

while Nikon was very good at maintaining compatibility. I have zero experience with Canon EF, but the Nikon F5 and

F100 are hard to beat. I think it all boils down to personal preference.

While I wasn't around to witness myself, I think the 'movement' as Craig described has got a lot to do with it. I've been a late-comer to photograpgy, but at that time when I got hooked (first generations DSLR, last SLR), the sidelines of any sports event was big white lenses only - all Canon. Their move to AF lenses and cameras, despite orphaning the old Fd mount, just seems to have placed them at the top of the game at the time. Only with the D3, Nikon got back a bit. Switching the full arsenal of lenses is such a costly joke that the real-world advantages that a body bring must really merit the cost of all that - after all, these are business expenses that need justification. So I'm sure it doesn't happen too often.</p>

<p>They were both very able competitiors, beginning in the 1960s, and their innovations very nearly put Leica out of business. Each began as small manufacturers of camera bodies or lenses. As SLRs began to attract attention away from rangefinders, and they lead that bandwagon, both Canon and Nikon flourished by introducing with innovative technology. As the digital age came into play, Canon seemed to have a lead in lens development in the longer focal length end, while Nikon had more refined products in the shorter end. In any given year the tide swung back and forth as to which was "better". Die-hard Canon fans still held a grudge from Canon abanoning the FD mount, making their treasured FD lenses basically useless in the digital age (until recently), while Nikon touted their maintainance of the F mount and ability to use much older lenses on modern bodies. I have and still own both mfrs pre-digital era bodies and lenses, as well as Leica and others, but went with Nikon on the digital side. Occasionally I would get a twinge of Canon envy, but within a few months, Nikon would even things out. So today, I truly believe that like Ford vs Chevy vs Toyota - the differences are nominal...all do the job well and continue to offer improvements and expansion of their lines to attract more users. Yesterday I attended a 2 million plus celebration in Chicago and of the thousands of cameras I saw...Canon & Nikon were only a handfull....the thousands of the rest were the cameras built into phones...so once again we see technology changing the patterns of the everyday photographer.</p>

<p>All good points...Thank You.<br>

Having just gotten back into cameras, I had no idea about any of "this". Like with so many things, Canon changing mount scenarios was a blessing and a curse. It has been good for me becaise I can pickup good bodies and lenses for cheap. But not so good for guys owning a bunch of Canon product that want to take it into the Digital age. I remember going to San Jose Camera (circa 1979) and looking at all the Canon lenses for my AE-1. I was floored by the pricing. I boiught a few Vivitar tubes becuase the Canon Brand was so much more expensive.<br />I wonder how much difference there was between those Vivitar lens and the Canon stamped glass.?<br>

If I were into Nikon, I would be shelling out a lot more money than I am for the FD stuff I have bought from E-Bay recently. <br>

Thanks Again for all the great info and insight. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>If I were into Nikon, I would be shelling out a lot more money than I am for the FD stuff I have bought from E-Bay recently.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, my bank account can confirm that is the case :-) But - I've gathered a nice set of Nikon primes (mostly end 80s, manual focus) and share those between my DSLR and film SLRs. So there is a bit of saving there. Or so I like to think..... <br />The FD-mount lenses can be used on quite some mirrorless systems (the Sony A7 series being probably the most interesting), so there are good ways to build a 'hybrid' digital/film kit with it now. But as it is, the 'orphaned' systems (FD, OM) are still quite a bit cheaper on eBay than those that have a more continuous story.</p>

<p>One of the things I like about Nikon is that I can still use all of my old manual focus primes on my DSLR bodies. (I have a D200 and a D7000, and my oldest lenses are at least Ai.) I shoot mostly with AF zooms but I have a dozen primes that are all still rock solid, and it's nice to pull out a 300 or 500 that was paid for 30 years ago rather than having to replace it just because the manufacturer decided to "improve" things.</p>

<p>Having been (voluntarily) sucked into RF rather than SLR photography in the 80s, due to its particular pros (and cons), I have only knowledge of a few less expensive Canon, Nikon and Kyocera (Yashica-Contax) bodies and some very good lenses. I do understand from friends and reading that the Canon F-1 was every bit as good as the Nikon F-1 and some subsequent flagship models. Popularity among pros or other segments of the market is one thing, quality another. Same for Pentax the LX model of which was of very high quality. I see all these (and other) manufacturers as having equal capability. The quality of lenses varies considerably even within the same brand so you have to try them or rely on comparisons and advice from experienced photographers.</p>

<p>A few examples may be relevant. There was no better 21mm SLR lens than the Yashica ML series f3.5. It would be hard also to better the Vivitar 100mm (been some years since I used it, I hope I have the focal length right) macro lens, series 1. These were not always recognised for their qualities, contrary to the case of the widely admired 105mm f2.5 Nikkor and certain other SLR lenses.</p>

<p>So what is better? Firstly, I think it depends on the level of better (or quality level) that is necessary for you, and secondly, in which system of optics have you most invested (and should probably stick to). I like Leica RF cameras but have mainly older excellent and less costly optics. There is no way I need or can justify a 7000$+ 50mm aspherical Summicron lens. At the point where I might see the differences with such a lens I have already jumped to a much less costly and equally performing (at smaller apertures) medium format camera and lens.</p>

<p>Back in the late 70's and early 80's Nikon was definitely better than Canon both in cameras and lenses. Although Canon had the best seller AE-1, it wasn't a particularly good camera. The fact that Canon abandon their FD lens mount when they went AF was the best thing they did. They have a fully electronic lens mount and the EF lenses they made in the late 80's is still compatible with their new camera. Nikon while retained their F mount (good reason too because Nikon lenses back then were better than the competitor) they had to make so many variance and a great cause for confusing for the new comers. Nikon finally Nikon introduce the new E lens with a lens/camera interface which is equivalent to that of the Canon EF. Finally Nikon has an all electronic interface and they are 30 years behind. Canon also has vastly improved their lenses and Canon lenses tend to be better than Nikon. </p>

<p>I can and do use the same lenses bought with my first F2 in 1976, on all of my digital Nikons today. Granted a few mods were required for Ai but otherwise it all works just fine. Further I can add MF lenses all day long for very small money relatively speaking. Lucky for me I'm not a fan of AF so I have a bag full of pro grade glass delivering excellent images on whatever body I am using. Canon can't say that but most Canon shooters I know don't care. Both are excellent product lines be it older or the most current equipment made. Either way, you win.<br /><br />Rick H.</p>

<p>When I was about 14 and before working in a camera store, I marveled while looking at "<em>Frank's Highland Park Camera" </em>catalogue at the vast choices in camera equipment.<br /> I somehow gained the knowledge that Nikon & Canon were the main event in the camera wars.</p>

<p>Through the eyes of an immature teenager, I looked at how upright and angular the masculine "Nikon" name was, vs. the curvaceous & soft, seemingly feminine "Canon".<br /> For me Nikon meant <strong><em>I can</em></strong> & Canon instead was <strong><em>can I ?</em> - I know, it's kinda weird...</strong><br /> (Saving up, my first NEW camera a year later was a Nikkormat)</p>

<p>You need to look further back into the '30s, '40s, '50s, & '60s. During the 1930s the 35mm of choice was the Leica & Zeiss. At the end of WW II the Zeiss factory was taken by the Russians. In the '50s Nikon came up with their rangefinders as did Canon. The Nikons out performed the Canons, with the only Canons of any that had lasting quality were the P & 7 which used screwmount lenses from the Leica system. The Nikon S2 and the later models were quickly adapted by professionals. In the '60s Nikon came out with the F & Nikkormat lines which were outstandingly rugged though their lenses being very good were equal to other companies. Canon did not come out with a SLR (F1) until about 1970. Nikon's main competitor was the Pentax Spotmatic which had outstanding lenses but unfortunately its metering system had to be reset after every photograph which meant in the SLR field Nikon was virtually without serious competitors until the F1 appeared almost ten years later. (The main competitor for Nikon was Leica.) This gave Nikon the upper hand in reputation. </p>

<p>I history lesson is in order. Canon did not first come out with an SLR "about 1970." The original Canonflex is from 1959, the same year as the Nikon F. Nikon's decision to keep its meter in the prism finder rather than in the body allowed it to improve its meters over time. The FTN was the last and most advanced meter prism for the F. The Canonflex system was a capable one but not as flexible as the Nikon F system. The Canon F-1 of 1971 was an improvement for many reasons. One of these is that the meter was in the body. Even now a Canon F-1 or F-1n looks much nicer than any of the Nikon F or F2 models with meter prisms. Using an F2 with a meter prism requires the use to keep his/her eye centered in order to read the meter window at the bottom. The Canon F-1 is more tolerant of slightly off-center viewing. <br>

The Canonflex system was not a commercial success and Canon was left for some years with no system camera (removable finder/interchangeable focusing screens). The Canon FT QL of 1966 was behind the times when it was intorduced. It still had stop down metering. That same year Minolta introduced the SRT 101 with full apertute metering. Even the Konica Auto Reflex of 1965 had full aperture metering but it did not have TTL metering. That would not come until 1968 with the Autoreflex T. Many of the Canonflex and Canon FL lenses were fine performers even if the cameras they were used with were not as convenient as those made by Nikon. From 1971 on the Canon and Nikon lenses were comparable in quality at most focal lengths. I still use Nikkors and Canon FD lenses from that time. Were Nikon cameras better than Canon cameras in the late 1970s and early 1980s? I would say that the mechanical models like the Nikkormats (after the FT) and FTbs were comparable in quality and function. The Nikon FE and FM series cameras were more sturdy than the Canon A series models. Both series were capable of good results. </p>

<p>This has been a Real Interesting lesson in camera history. I was born 1960...so was in High School in 75-79. The perception at that time, for a teenager, was that Nikon did not have an "entry level" camera that a 16 year old could afford. The Canon AE-1 was a flood-gate for many young, would-be photographers. Nikon seemed like a Porsche 911, and Canon a Datsun 510 We all wanted the 911, but we drove and could afford the 510. Whether or not that was true, I don't know. We just assumed Nikon was out of reach, and never really pursued that brand.<br>

We mostly shot Black and White, and would have just the Negatives developed, and then would rent darkroom time at a local camera store. I am probably (partly) reliving my youth by buying these Canon's now :-)<br>

Another thing we had trouble affording was the Canon brand lens. Vivitar was what me mostly bought. Their lenses all seemed to work fine, but the guys at the camera store often complained about the quality of the Vivitar "optics". Our pictures never seemed to suffer because we screwed a Vivitar tube to the end of our AE-1 :-)<br>

Thanks Again for all of your guys experience.....it has made for some very enjoyable reading.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"Back in the late 70's and early 80's Nikon was definitely better than Canon both in cameras and lenses. Although Canon had the best seller AE-1, it wasn't a particularly good camera."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The Canon F1 and F-1n were entirely comparable to the Nikon F and F2 in every way. What Canon lacked at the time was on-site support at major events. Canon attempted to chip away at Nikon's dominance at major events such as the 1976 and '80 Olympics, including commemorative models. But there was no compelling reason for pros to choose Canon until the autofocus era.<br /> <br /> The Canon AE-1 was enormously successful and a very good camera in that market niche with only a few quirks. Combined with very savvy advertising it owned that niche for enthusiast level amateurs.<br /> <br /> Nikon attempted to respond with the FM to replace the Nikkormat/Nikomat and find a market niche that would appeal to serious amateurs and budding pros who were considering Canon. But the first FM didn't offer much more than the older Canon FTb/n, and the Nikon still cost more. Canon fired back almost immediately with the A1, which was very popular with serious amateurs and pros on a budget. Many of my fellow college journalism majors opted for the feature-rich A1 over the FM. Most newspaper pros I knew used Nikon, and some had the FM as a second body or backup to their F, F2 or F3.<br /> <br /> In 1979 Nikon tried to lure women and rookies with <a href="http://imaging.nikon.com/history/chronicle/cousins11-e/">the EM, but the ads were a bit tone deaf</a>, borderline condescending without quite reaching the level of overt sexism. Brochures featured active young women wearing the cameras like fashion apparel, or with a woman's hand in the frame, wearing an EM like a bracelet or charm, under the slogan "The Little Nikon". The ad approach may have backfired. I never met a woman or rookie of any kind who owned an EM. All preferred the AE-1. Just as well. The EM was a terrible camera. I've handled more than 20 used EM's over the years and have never found one that was still fully functional.</p>

<p>Meanwhile the AE-1 keeps ticking away, with the squeaky mirror box and foam seals being the main weakness. Canon's ads for the AE-1 were much hipper, featuring men and women sports celebrities. Canon neatly avoided the condescending tone that plagued the entire camera industry throughout the 20th century. Oddly, Kodak set the bar high for equality with the first roll film Kodaks back in the late 1800s, but unfortunately that tone didn't last, and by the 1950s every camera maker had joined in treating women photographers as "little ladies" who were easily baffled by complicated contraptions. Any woman who operated a sewing machine should have been offended. I never could figure out how to operate my grandmother's sewing machines.<br>

<br /> In the mid-range class for enthusiasts Canon and Nikon duked it out pretty evenly, with the T70 and FE/2. Very different cameras with similar auto and manual features. Back then I preferred the T70 for the built in winder, which added no significant bulk or weight and ran on ordinary AA batteries. But nowadays I'd prefer the Nikon FE2 for the overall versatility, and I no longer need or use a winder or motor drive. And the T70 isn't really repairable for the long haul. The winder is the weak point and there are no spares. I traded one around 2000, and gave the other away, when I switched to Nikon.<br /> <br /> But Canon's real coup was in taking the bold and risky move toward completely redesigning the mount to fully accommodate autofocus; where Nikon took the safer, more timid and ultimately less wise route by trying to cobble AF onto the existing mount while retaining legacy compatibility. Canon also got serious about professional level support at major events, and quick turnaround for repairs to pro cameras for pro photographers. Nikon lost ground to Canon for many years and didn't regain the stature of its heyday until the mid-2000s.</p>

<p>In long term ownership, about 15 years ago I switched from Canon FD to Nikon, mostly with an eye toward transitioning toward digital and keeping some of the same manual focus lenses. No serious regrets, although in retrospect I could have gone with Canon EOS much earlier and still been very satisfied.</p>

<p>Interesting comments.</p>

<p>This controversy has been going on for a while and will likely be around when all of us are gone. </p>

<p>Canon ate Nikon's lunch in the 1970's on and if Nikon had not been subsumed into Mitsubishi in 1988 it would probably have only survived as a boutique brand vendor in the same category as Leica. It was far smaller than Canon at that time and had little or no diversity in it's business compared to Canon. Comparing the quality of the competing lens lines from that time is as pointless now as it was then.<br>

At that time many of us photographers wondered how Nikon was going to exist in the broader market where the most simple concept, the clockwise or counterclockwise mounting and focusing of the lenses could continue in an almost unique manner on Nikon's part, differing from every other camera manufacturer. Who would move to Nikon from there? <br>

Canon won the war in the marketplace.<br>

If it's critical for you today to be able to use older lenses on your DSLR, you would be well advised to consider the current Canon line, which is able to mount up a huge variety of them with inexpensive adapters.<br>

Of course none provide VR or whatever it's called. So one of the most valuable modern enhancements is unavailable. Unless you have gone to the Sony Alpha route. <br>

Mitsubishi saved Nikon for sure. </p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Canon ate Nikon's lunch in the 1970's on..."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In terms of volume sales, sure, if we include not only the AE-1 but also Canon's popular P&S models, Canonet compact rangefinders (Nikon had nothing comparable), and entire imaging product sales. But Canon didn't make a dent in Nikon's professional dominance until the EOS models replaced the FD. <a href="https://fstoppers.com/other/examining-fiscal-year-2012-sales-olympus-sony-nikon-and-canon-3401">Both companies make it difficult to evaluate market share on a granular level</a>.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"...if Nikon had not been subsumed into Mitsubishi in 1988 it would probably have only survived as a boutique brand..."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm not sure subsumed accurately describes the <a href="http://www.dslrbodies.com/nikon/about-nikon/nikon-faq/is-nikon-a-subsidiary-of.html"><em>keiretsu</em></a> system. Mitsubishi is an incredibly diverse organization. And every few years market analysts predict the demise of Mitsubishi too.<br>

<br>

While Nikon has never been as large as Canon in terms of volume and gross, it's long had some diversity including in semiconductor inspection equipment, microscopes and other optical imaging niches. By the mid-1980s market saturation and improvements in camera automation made Nikon seem a bit stodgy.<br>

<br>

And Nikon still seems risk-averse. But since introducing the full frame dSLRs Nikon has regained its competitive position with Canon in the pro market.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>the clockwise or counterclockwise mounting and focusing of the lenses could continue in an almost unique manner on Nikon's part, differing from every other camera manufacturer.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Those things were held over from the rangefinder days when Nippon Kogaku modelled their cameras on Contax. The focusing ring direction was also shared by Pentax (plus other M42 and K-mount manufacturers AFAIK.)</p>

<blockquote>

<p><br /> If it's critical for you today to be able to use older lenses on your DSLR, you would be well advised to consider the current Canon line, which is able to mount up a huge variety of them with inexpensive adapters. Of course none provide VR or whatever it's called.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>All Canon EF lenses work on all EOS cameras, film and digital, including IS and all other functions. (Of course EF-s lenses work on digital APS-c bodies only.)</p>

<p>I am a fan of Canon 1V and Nikon F100, F5, F6. These all share the current Canon and Nikon glass and have first rate meters and autofocus. They are highly configurable with custom function and store shooting data for later download. That being said a fully mechanical Nikon F2 Titan is the most beautiful camera ever made. :)</p>

<p>I was a hard-core Canon FD user when AF hit the market in the mid-80s. When Canon released the T80, which bombed almost immediately, the writing was already on the wall. Yeah, I was unhappy that Canon changed their mount in 1987, but unlike a lot of other Canon oldtimers, I got over it. I realized very quickly that, surely it hurt for Canon to abandon the FD mount, but Canon was getting clobbered by Minolta, and when they introduced the EOS mount, it was nothing less than a masterstroke of genius. All-electronic interface, physically larger mount opening (which meant it would handle long telephotos better than Nikon and other narrow-opening mounts), all that remained was for Canon to play catch-up with lenses in the new EF mount. But this Canon did, and with a vengeance.</p>

<p>I had my own way of judging the popularity of Canon vs. Nikon back then. I'd watch major sporting events and would pay attention whenever a photographer would enter the scene -- you know, when football players plow into their ranks, etc. And I would keep a tally between white lenses and black lenses. Beginning in the late 1980s I began seeing more white lenses. This trend continued, until by the mid-90s or so, most of the lenses I'd see on the sidelines were white. I think that a big reason for the changeover was the admittedly lackluster AF of the Nikon F4. The EOS-1 (later 1n then 1v) simply blew it into the weeds. And when the F5 finally hit the market, the damage had largely been done. And then when DSLRs hit the scene, I think Canon learned from the trip-ups of their earlier FD days, and has done an outstanding job of supporting the pros, while making sure their optical products are second to none -- at a rather steep price, but then so are the Nikons, far as that goes.</p>

<p>From the mid-80s to the mid-90s I did quite a bit of motorsports photography, often working freelance. At the motorsports events I attended, as a Canon FD shooter, I was always in the minority back then. But there'd usually be one or two other Canon guys, and we'd almost always develop an instant camaraderie -- us against the Borg. ;-)</p>

<p>These days, I don't have any strong brand loyalty any more. Life is too short. I've been having too much fun using cameras of all different makes, many of which I now own. Like many other Canon FD users, I switched over to Nikon about 25 years ago to have the mount continuity. But I didn't buy an AF Nikon until about a year ago when I finally bought an F4. Whereas, shortly after switching to Nikon, I also bought into EOS -- bought a Rebel with lens and then later a flash for the wife to use to take pics of our newborn daughter. And I slowly added lenses to the EOS outfit. So naturally when I finally bought a DSLR, EOS got the nod. But you know, I couldn't stay away from Canon FD, so I ended up buying back into it about six years ago. And now, my largest collection segment is FD cameras and lenses. But I also have a sizable Nikon collection segment and a growing Pentax one. And, largely out of necessity and largely because I just like them, I also have a sizable collection of Tamron lenses -- everything from 17mm to 500mm, plus 1.4x and 2x TCs. I find that the Tamrons I own, especially their SP line, are every bit as good as OEM glass.</p>

<p>My most recent digital purchase was a Sony NEX 7. Almost immediately after buying the NEX, I bought adapters for a variety of mounts, most especially Canon FD and Nikon. I was really looking forward to shooting with my FD glass at last on a good digital camera. And I haven't been disappointed. It was almost worth the wait. I say 'almost' because I would have rather bought an a7, but by that time I couldn't afford the additional expense. Perhaps I'll amuse myself with a Lens Turbo instead.</p>

 

<p>'I'm not sure subsumed accurately describes the <a href="http://www.dslrbodies.com/nikon/about-nikon/nikon-faq/is-nikon-a-subsidiary-of.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><em>keiretsu</em></a> system. Mitsubishi is an incredibly diverse organization. And every few years market analysts predict the demise of Mitsubishi too."</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Well, I have never predicted their demise or desired it. I was just stating the obvious history from that time period.</p>

<p>In the early 1970's I was sent out by my employer to take bridge photographs. I used a Canon EF and a 28mm 2.0 lens. Nikon had nothing to provide at that time that was as usable for me. Not sports photography then or now.</p>

<p>Sports photography then and now is still far less than 1 % of professional photography. </p>

<p>I'm glad Nikon is still in business in some form. Competition in the industry is good.</p>

<p> </p>

</blockquote>

<p>I would be interested in knowing where you get that 1% figure. Can you document it, please? If it is indeed as low of a percentage as you claim, I suspect this is only due to the fact that there are just so many wedding photographers around, which skew the percentage.</p>