Canon vs. Nikon

<p>"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."<br /><br />I was also born in 1960 and bought my first Nikon in 1976. Their entry level camera was the Nikkormat and I was jealous that a friend's parents bought him one. But I saved my pennies and bought an F2 Photomic with f/2 50 for $428 (I still remember the price). I actually bought this before I bought my first car (a 1966 Chevy Impala for $300) and paid more for the camera than the car. That tells you how crazy I was about photography that a 16-year-old boy would buy a camera before he would buy a car. The car is long gone (it lasted 3-4 eyars) but that F2 is still going strong and turned out to be the first of seven Nikon bodies over the years.</p>

<p>My first SLR was almost a Canon AE-1P because my father was going to help me get one to keep me from buying a Kawasaki that I badly wanted at the time, and then an electric guitar and amp. The guitar rig won over both of the other two, but I later ended up in photography anyway. That was predestined though, as my dad was an avid photographer. My first SLR was a Pentax ME Super, but when 1992 rolled around, I bought an EOS A2, a camera that I still have a great deal of respect for. I've pretty much shot Canon ever since, but in the mid-2000s I started branching out with older gear and found a number of Nikons that I love, chief among them being the F3HP, FE/FE2, and the F100. I find that I enjoy so many cameras from many different manufacturers, but I still tend to favor Canons. Ironically, I chose the EOS A2 over the Nikon N90 mainly because the A2 felt better in my large hands, not for any technical reasons as both cameras were pretty amazing. Plus the N90 was $100 more expensive, so had it been on sale that day and if it had felt better in my hand, I'd probably shoot primarily Nikon today!</p>

<p>Canon FD lenses are available for low prices, but many Nikon lenses are also pretty affordable. I bought an AI 80-200 for about $12. Even though you can use AI lenses with some DSLRs, (but not all), the prices are still pretty good.</p>

<p>(Many Nikon DSLRs will work with, but not meter with, AI lenses.)</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Huge cars have been largely displaced by smaller ones (if we ignore the infatuation for the larger SUV). Canon and Nikon, with comprehensive but very bulky and heavy systems, have yet to realize that the future for many photographers is smaller and lighter, with names like Sony and Fuji. </p>

<p>Arthur, I agree and disagree. Definitely there is a trend toward smaller and lighter with the increasing popularity of mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras, for example. But for the photographers that require fast telephotos, or even fast zooms, there's no getting around size.</p>

<p>In the 1960s, my first SLR was a Miranda Sensorex.</p>

<p>If the Canon F1, Olympus OM1, or Pentax 645 had been in existence in the 1960s, I would have considered using them. Instead, I chose the Miranda Sensorex as my first SLR. When I started working for a newspaper, the other photographers were using Nikon F, Leica, and Rolleiflex. I traded my Sensorex for a Nikon F so I could borrow their lenses.</p>

<p>In the 1970s, I traded my Nikon F for a Nikon F2. I normally carried the Nikon F2 with a 35mm f/2, an 85mm f/1.8, and a 180mm f/2.8. I carried these items plus a Vivitar 283 flash, a handheld light meter, and a few rolls of b&w film in a small army surplus bag on a 650cc BSA motorcycle.</p>

<p>The F2 body and the 85 and 180mm lenses shown in this photo have survived years of use and abuse. The 85mm f/1.8 was the second Nikon lens I purchased and the 180mm was the third. Both were originally pre-AI lenses that I had AI’d by Nikon.</p>

<p>The 35mm f/2 lens was the first Nikon lens I purchased. It too was AI’d by Nikon. However, since it was the lens I used the most, it received a lot more wear and tear than the other equipment. I had to replace it twice – once with another 35mm f/2 and eventually with the 35mm f/1.4 shown in this photo.</p>

<p> </div>

<p>In the late sixties and early seventies I can't recall that any of the professional photographers that covered the Vietnam War used anything but Nikon and Leica cameras. Nothing else could stand up to the harsh conditions the climate brought upon the heavily used / roughly used equipment.</p>

<p>While the two giants were battling it out, other camera makers such as Minolta, Pentax and Olympus would nibble at their heels with new innovations. These camera usually offered more bang for the buck, but did not have the wide professional support network that the Pros demanded. </p>

<p>Completely off task here .... but Pentax K-mount and current Pentax in body stabilization means all lenses from Pentax A lens forward have both metering and shake reduction. As to what that will mean in sales volume for the coming in 2016 Pentax Full Frame digital SLR I have no idea. Has Ricoh saved Pentax? Time will tell. Ricoh is now introducing more Full Frame lenses.</p>