Why most PROS use Canon than Nikon?

<p>Fellas, this thread was over before it started, wasn't it? I mean, seriously, couldn't we all have predicted the natural history of the messages that would appear here?<br>

The more of these threads I read, the more I think anyone from the outside world would see us as a bunch of nebbish, angry nerds, regardless of whether we shoot Canon or Nikon.<br>

The answer to the OP's post before the runaway train was detailed above: both brands are well represented, Canon held an edge for a while due to early advances in AF technology and better early dSLR bodies.</p>

 

<p>The answer lies in Canons lead in Big, Fast glass in Autofocus lenses after AF came into play. Nikon stayed with manual focus for a full four-five years after Canon had a 300/2.8, 400/2.8 and 600/4.0. That jump in top quality AutoFocus glass sealed the deal as one could be on the sidelines of NFL games and shoot with F3's or whatever and get some good images using teh 600 f/4. The guy next to you was shooting with Canon AutoFocus 600 f/4 glass and getting more keepers per roll. Nikons attitude at the time was that AF wasn't that big a deal, customers would wait until Nikon caught up, etc.<br>

Customers didn't wait. You went from 80% or so of sidelines all black superteles to that percentage all white lenses. NFL, MLB, Pro Tennis, International skiing, nearly every sport that relied on big fast supertelephot lenseso suddenly got more keepers per roll of film using Canon. I watched as friends tried the Canon 600 on the same ski slope as they were shooting their Nikon 600's. Compared the shots roll to roll and the greater success of the fast AF lenses sealed the deal. One Olympic/US Ski team shooter went from the venue to the pro camera store in the area and the next day had a completely new Canon system.<br>

Now that Nikon has caught up to Canon with fast big lenses there is little difference. What we see now in photojournalism is that Nikon has geared their bodies to this type of photography. D300/700/3 bodies are all geared to working photojounalists in performance. Canon seems to be in the megapixel race with the 1DMkIII(and its ever new 'latest fix' on AF performance) the lone real photojournalist tool in the arsenal.<br>

Both systems are very good. Both are reliable. If it appears as most Pros use Canon it may well be that sidelines with White lenses still stand out more than black lenses. The only real difference right now is the 1DMkIII problems that have driven some into the Nikon camp, mainly sports shooters and photojournalists. A body that is reliable in AF is paramount an the Canon offering is still unreliable in the minds of many who are sticking with the 1DMkIIn or moving to Nikon. Niether system is perfect. No matter which you choose you have great options. No matter who has an advantage right now it could easily change in the next year with the introduction of the next 'latest and greatest' body.</p>

 

<p>Why does it matter? A picture is a picture. Nikon and Canon both make good cameras.</p>

<p>Well I think everyone has exhausted the flaming for a while. Some have had some layers peeled off them to reveal nothing less than bigotry. But its all interesting reading.<br>

Tomorrow I am trading in my D300 on a D700 and having got to FX and with more than enough resolution, I think this will be a camera I will wear out.<br>

The only ever other camera I wore out before was an OM1n that I bought new in 1978 and used for more than 20 years. Back then I think I paid about $400 for it and three nice fast Zuiko's. I got my money back when I traded it on my first Nikon. I love my FM2n and FE2. They remind me of the Olympus. They are just about a bit bigger than the palm of your hand...gorgeous and its all metal.<br>

I love the F4sM23 as it will keep on shooting when everyone else has run out of bullets, and you can then throw it at the enemy in a last stand, and it might do some damage! Its also got the biggest and best uncluttered viewfinder ever put in a camera.<br>

The D300 was great, but the DX format gave me grief for wide angles and the FX D700 will use all my Nikkors going back to the 1980s.<br>

I dabbled with Canon a few times...a 50E, G7 and a 5D. The images were great, and the eye focus tracking of the 50E was brilliant. But there is no going away from Nikon's ease of use and consistency of controls across all models and over several iterations. They just seem to get out of the way better to allow you to take more shots faster, without thinking. This really helps me, because I need glasses to read menus and settings, but have to take them off to see through the viewfinder. The Nikons allow me to make my settings, go shoot and my glasses stay in the pocket all day.<br>

These are all very subjective, but unashamadely important to me. So we buy what works for us and stay loyal. Nothing wrong with that. If I had no limit to funds, I'd buy a Leica S2 kit and gloat.</p>

<p><tt>Many people say Nikon is good, but why do I see most of the Pro photojournalist use Canon more than Nikon?</tt></p>

<p align="justify">Because a) time changes and b) people's taste change as well. Let's see:<br />1930s - 1950s : the pro tools were Rolleiflex TLR and the tiny Leica 35mm<br />1960s - 1970s : dominated by 35mm cameras especially Nikon F something and Pentax Spotmatic<br />1980s - 1990s : as far as the eyes can see there were only Nikon F3 and Canon F1<br />digital era : Canon and Nikon, with some distant Pentax, Olympus, Leica, Sony, Panasonic etc.<br /><br />It doesn't matter which brand you choose as photographic tool, as they are the same players in the league. Sometimes brand X catches up with brand Y, and some years later the situation reversed again. Different thing when the 35mm photography of yester-years were maturing - say roughly between the 50s and late in the 70s. Back then, you will probably see the real quality differences between brand X and brand Y. Just enjoy your modern digital photographic tool and be happy with its results. You can't go wrong.</p>

<p>Jim provides a pretty good answer. When it comes to sports photography on a pro level, a Canon may be a better fit due to availability of long and fast zoom lenses. That's why you see 37 huge white lenses at a pro football game. When it comes to anything else, both Nikon and Canon are fair game. I'm a Nikon guy, but my partner in photography crime is a Canon fanatic. She likes Canons, I like Nikons...</p>

<p>Everyone knows that Canon cameras and lenses are better than Nikon. Where have you been living?</p>

<p>May be the clients ask for those ;)</p>

<p><strong>Everyone knows that Canon cameras and lenses are better than Nikon. Where have you been living?</strong><br>

In the real world<strong> :)<br /> </strong></p>

<p><em>In the real world<strong > :)</strong></em><strong ></strong></p>

<p>Ha!</p>

 

<p ><em><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=1487895">Bob Cossar</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub5.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Mar 06, 2009; 04:44 p.m.</em></p>

 

<p><em>(SNIP) The truth is this: <strong>ALL</strong> professional photographers shoot with.....wait for it... </em><br>

<em>__________________________________________</em><br>

And whole heaps of us only shoot/shot; wait for it: what the company supplies.<br>

For my early years as a PJ, (1966) that more often than not meant... Nikon.<br>

Canon (EOS) broke out of the pack with their full court press once their "T90" and later EOS "1" body SLRs came into being. </p>

 

 

<p>Good debate. One photographer had it right, its really down to all of us to produce good pictures regardless of the tool we are using. I obviously prefer Nikon as i find them a more professional outfit to hold and use. Nikon has some of the best lenses around, some to mention are the 14-24mm, 24-70mm, 105mm macro although Canon do produce an excellent 100mm but without stabilisation. Both produce the professional tele-photo range, obviously Canon white because i think they ran out of professional black paint ! and Nikon with outstanding optics not choosing to go for the very bright white paint that would not only frighten wildlife but require a clean after every use! I think then the answer to your question then is why most pro's use Canon than Nikon is a thing of the past. In other words white must have been in fashion like those horrendous coloured bathroom suites of the past. :o) </p>

<p>I shoot Nikon for one reason, not the ergonomics that are fabulous, not for the glass- I shoot it because of the groupies. And how many Canon songs are there? It doesnt go "I've got my Canon camera, gonna take some photographs..." Paul Simon knew. White lens, can I get that with a chrome body? Ever notice how much photo gear is black. There's a reason. Groupies. Black is the new black. You really dont think Obama shoots Canon, do you? And if you didnt hear, Yellow(see Nikon Logo) is also the new black this year. Wear that Nikon strap, a nikon hat, nikon name on body and lens, what do you get? Groupies. If I could only find one with a Nikon tramp stamp instead of those cliche harley wings. Hmm, over to photoshop. </p>

<p>I use the one true pro camera, the Crown Graphic loaded with 4x5 sheets of 25-100 speed black and white film. Sure it is the cameras that PROS used 50 years ago, but hey, cameras become outdated so fast, I doubt it will matter much. It does make rather nice 80 megapixel images on a flatbed. </p>

<p>I work in Washington, DC, in PR and was previously a reporter myself and a newspaper photographer before that. Haven't counted cameras at a news conference lately but I think it's safe to say there's a 50-50 split between Nikon and Canon among news photographers here. Sometimes maybe more of one than the other but I don't think you can say "most use Nikon" or "most use Canon." What you can say is that virtually all use either Nikon or Canon virtually to the exclusion of anything else. I can only speak for news photographers, not other categories within professional photography, and only for what I see here in Washington, which is mostly breaking daily news on deadline. But within that realm, maybe 15 years ago if there were two dozen photographers at an event you might sometimes see one with a Leica. But in the past 10 years or so I have never -- not ever -- seen a news photographer shooting a Washington news event with anything other than a Nikon or Canon. Not saying they're not out there, just that I haven't seen them.</p>

青菜萝卜各有所好 哈哈

<p >Daniel Lee Taylor to Michael Moore: </p>

<p ><em>I suppose you think the 5D II is "slow" because it shoots at 3.9 fps. For a few years I shot sports, airshows, and birds in flight with a 3 fps camera which I considered up to the task. 3.9 fps is not "slow". </em></p>

<p >Granted it's not the 6-10 fps of faster bodies, but the 5D series was always about image quality.</p>

<p >__________________________________</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Michael, I still own my 1994 architecture Canon EOS A2E film SLR, a “lowly” “semi-pro” body that still cranks out film frames @ 5fps-<em>unboosted</em>. </p>

<p >How many ) modern (post 2002) DSLRs (any) can do 5fps-<em>unboosted<em>? </em></em></p>

<p >Did you forget about the EOS 1HV film SLR @ 10fps?</p>

<p >Or the Canon F1 (motorized) @ 10fps?<br>

As noted, “fast” SLRs was the domain of Canon even back in film SLR days</p>

<p>My friend and I purchased our DSLRs the very same time. He opted for the Nikon D90 and I for the Canon 50D.<br>

After seeing pictures from both cameras, I have come to a proper conclusion: the lens is more important than the mechanics (since they are very very close to each other in performance). His lens is a 18-200 vs mine 18-55.<br>

I chose the Canon because (I am a Canon fan through and through with this as my 3rd Canon) the grip was "bigger" than the Nikon; which spells more comfort for me while taking pictures.<br>

The Canon 50D also has something that the Nikon does not: magnesium alloy body to withstand nature. You will have to step up to a D300 for that (an extra $600).<br>

Second, Canon incorporates CF/UMA cards while the Nikon D90 uses SD cards. I think that most CF cards are faster for read/write than most SD cards. This could difference when shooting RAW images up to 20MB and shooting action/sports in rapid fire mode.</p>

<p>Talk about reviving a dead thread.</p>

<p>@Sohil: The root problem is that Nikon bodies are much more expensive than their Canon counterparts. You are comparing a semi-pro with a consumer body. A more apt comparison between two semi-pro bodies would be the Canon 50D and the Nikon D300, but once again the $600 difference is a big issue.</p>

<p>Don't limit yourself. I started with a Minolta x700 and loved it to death(still have it). The next few cameras were Canons and I hated every one of them. The only Canons I've tried, (and I've tried quite a few of them) and actually liked were the 50D and the G10. I currently shoot with the Nikon D90 (I dont like the 700 as much personally). It' not that Canons were bad cameras, I personally found the interface uncomfortable and diffulcult to shoot with. Go to the nearst camerastore and try ALL your options Nikon, Lecia, Canon, yes Olympus, Sony, Sigma, Maymia, Pentax, and etc and see what one fits you best. An Olympus is great for one photographer and a Canon is good for another. Don't go with the trend just because you meet more people that like it. Try to find the best one that fits you, your shooting style, and your needs... And the glass is more important than the camera.</p>

<p>"<a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=4089624">Mark Loader</a> <a href="http://www.photo.net/member-status-icons"></a>, Mar 08, 2009; 08:11 a.m.</p>

 

<p>Beware the angry Canonite! Read about the reaction to British wildlife photographer Andy Rouse's switch from Canon to Nikon ( i.e. darkness to light ). Suffice to say he doesn't visit forums anymore. I personally chose Nikon ( cue Heavenly Trumpets ) because they produce sharp jpegs straight out of the camera, which is important to me. What's important to you?"</p>

<p>---> is that true of the nIkon CMOS cameras as well? (D90 and up)<br>

I am a Nikon D50 shooter, but I have found Canon images generally more detailed and pleasing (life like) to the eyes. Nikon D50 gives very saturated images and sharp jpegs straight out of camera.</p>

 

<p>Set your optimization to neutral I did that on my D90 and my images are superior (in the natural look) to what I get on a 50D</p>

One thing i really think would help was if every shot came with exif shown up. So anyone would look the pictures they like

most, check the gear they were made with, and voila! You have a simple and very objective way of choosing what you

prefer, among all brands, not only canon or nikon.

 

I shoot with nikon because they provide me sharper images and they seem to be better built than canon. I would like to

have a Leica, though...

<p>Sorry for bringing up old thread, just sharing here in Indonesia (so bear with my English :) )<br>

Happened I just started learning photography by myself just about 2 years ago, it was nice & fun, but somehow I felt "hollow" without proper base.<br>

So tried to get some old photography magazine from film era around 80's & 90's.<br>

Boy, I was in for surprised, found a LOT of very creative exposure techniques that I've never read on "modern era" (ie. digital) photography sites & magz. There were no Photoshop yet then, but sure they can do "layering", Dodge & burn, cropping, contrast & exposure manipulation in post, etc.<br>

Anyway, one thing quite interesting is, Canon knew they had some blunder by abandoning their FD/FL/etc. old lens mount standards (circa 1986, anyway their old lenses were never really good worthy enough, well save some for exotic f/1.2 or bigger lens); hence they'd emphasize on marketing & advertising of their new system. It was in the late 80's, so maybe their efforts quite paid out today (or a few recent years back).<br>

Funny thing is (was) though, throughout many magazines, I've never seen any single Nikon SLR ads. Dunno whether overconfident or no budget.<br>

As for optical quality of lens design, sure CaNikon got some quite good lens, but most important they become so popular is that they can made & sell it quite economically price-to-performance ratio. Red somewhere that in order to create a "perfect" lens, then basically the price wouldn't be "economical" for most of population of the world. Only industry & government agencies could afford (cinema, hollywood, Intel, CIA, NSA, NASA, etc.)<br>

Zeiss Otus can be taken as an example; quite industrial standards, being sold and targeted for consumer/professionals.<br>

Back in the old days, Nikon was king, and crazy enough to produce some really "wild" lens designs, lens which can see "behind" them, lens that can resolve up to thousand of LP/mm for creating electronic Integrated Circuit industry, their true "macro" lens instead of their current "consumer" standard of "micro-Nikkor".<br>

<br />Talk about their "old" 35mm lens quality, generally for the same condition & specification, Nikon's pre-Ai/Ai/Ai-S lenses would fetch higher value in the market compared to old Canon FD/FL/etc or any other manufacturer.<br>

As for DSLR body quality, sensor quality (thus producing the image), old Nikon DSLR would fetch higher money too compared to Canon DSLR from the same era/same condition (at least here in Indonesia).<br>

As of me, I use Nikon primarily because it is more comfortable for me (user interface & body design); however if I to get better image quality with minimum resource spending, I'd get a canon 5D (not mark II or III) and some chipped Nikon to EOS lens adapter paired with (any) Nikkor 50/1.4 or 85/1.8.<br />5D's body about 600US$ where similar 12MP Nikon D700 still around 1200US$ here.<br>

Currently using D1x with 1/16000 flash sync speed, really useful with my 50/1.4 & tropical sun here, can't afford singh ray ND filter. (supposing Canon 1d could do the same thing ).<br>

Fast forward to modern day, now we have "HD Video DSLR" and most "good quality" video camera going for thousands of dollars (if not tens of thousands), the only "Sub 5.000US$" video recording system you can get to compete with hollywood quality would be with Canon 5D Mk.III and Magic Lantern for RAW Video capture (let alone the lenses though).</p>

<p>I have a Canon EOS 1200D and I find it very easy to use. I had Nikon D3300 and I had to read the manual(canon manual was easier as well).I ended up buying Nikon Df and I love it and the reading that goes with it.<br>

Regarding freebies, the first Canon workshop I attended- I got a free Canon cap and now after 4 workshops Nikon has given us free "I am Nikon " sticker and an inferior quality cap :D</p>

<p>I still feel - head to head- as a beginner, Canon 1200D was much easier to use the the Nikon D3300.</p>