Nikon vs Canon

Discussion in 'Canon EOS' started by brucecahn, Jun 12, 2010.

  1. This is a response to the Nikon vs. Canon discussion on the Nikon forum. As a film photographer, who once used Nikons to make a living, I preferred Nikons, going into digital. So I got a d90, and when that failed to satisfy, a d700. I used them for about a year. I never liked either one of them. There were way too many menu choices on the Nikons. Things like in camera retouching. In fact, they put every thing they could think of on the menus of the digital Nikons. It was so confusing, that I kept one set to B&W, one to color. I could not (no, I am not retarded) switch from B&W to color without a lot of problems finding the right settings on the menu. This was ridiculous! Why not a simple switch on the camera for something so basic. No, I had to immerse myself in a ridiculous menu without end. Finally, I got so fed up with the Nikons, that I bought a Canon 5D2. Wow! So simple and easy to use. The things that took endless fiddling on the D700, were easy on this Canon. Simple switching from B&W to color was instantaneous. You didn't even have to look at the manual. Everything was as easy as it should have been. I was very happy with the Canon. I bought a second 5D2 body and an adapter for my Nikon lenses. I sold the Nikon bodies. Fortunately they had a pretty good resale value, so I did not lose that much. Little by little I have been selling those Nikon lenses, keeping only the lenses that would be good for my wonderful Nikon FM3 film camera. About six months into the Canon digital cameras I am very happy with them.
     
  2. Here's my story. It took Nikon a few years to finally jump on the full frame bandwagon with their FX series bodies. Nikon representatives repeatedly told me that they would not design a full frame sensor camera. That was back in 2006. Digitally, Canon was already ahead of Nikon. Frustrated, I sold all of my Nikon film gear (with the exception of their film scanner and 77mm L37C filters) and switched to Canon digital. For me, it is Canon for life.
     
  3. This is a response to the Nikon vs. Canon discussion on the Nikon forum.​
    I missed the discussion you refer to (I view the forums using "unified view"). I had to go back and see what it was that you're talking about. The OP asked a question in a very neutral, non-confrontational fashion, and the resulting discussion stayed balanced; the overriding theme is that both brands are quite competent and it boils down mostly to taste.
    So, how is this thread, in any way, shape, or form, a "response" to that? Are you disappointed that there wasn't any flaming? Is that what you need, and what you hope to get, here?
     
  4. Joseph: No I am not hoping for a fight. I simply wanted to convey my experiences with the two brands. I still have a Nikon film camera and like it very much. This site can be very confrontational. I have tried to stay out of the battles in recent years.
     
  5. @Bruce
    Out of curiosity, don't you miss the AF system of D700? Don't get me wrong, I love my 5D (classic) but I wish the outer AF points have been crossed type.
     
  6. Canon cameras are for engineers while Nikons cameras are for photographers is the term I was accustomed to hearing.
     
  7. Canon cameras are for engineers while Nikons cameras are for photographers is the term I was accustomed to hearing.​
    Yeah, and it was - and is - tripe.
     
  8. Agreed, that's nonsense, the systems and individual components are pretty comparable, they have to be they're serving the same customers.
    I must admit, Nikon did seem to lose the plot a bit a few years back, firstly as has been mentioned, taking an age to bring a full frame body out, and just as importantly falling MILES behind with image stabilisation. Off the top of my head I can't remember how long Canon had IS lenses in the big pro lenses (300 2.8, 400 2.8, 500 f4 and 600 f4) but it was a LONG time! What was Nikon thinking?
    But with their superb VR long teles plus the sensational D3 series they've definitely got back into the game.
    Steve
     
  9. My opinion is that it's a simple matter of lens compatibility. All EF lenses work on all EOS bodies, and anything that physically mounts on an EOS body (anything from a pinhole in aluminum foil to screwmount Pentax takumars to modern professional L lenses) works with the body's light meter. This holds true for everything from the lowliest 10-year-old 35mm rebel to the latest pro-grade DSLR.
    Nikon's lens compatibility situation is somewhat more complex. For me, it's as simple as that. Canon makes my life easy when it comes to buying equipment (either new or used). Nikon would make it hard.
     
  10. Not quite Matt, EF-S lenses won't cover the full frame bodies. Canon have full frame, 1.3x and 1.6x crop bodies - how is that less complex than Nikon? With Nikon you get the added bonus / complication that you can use manual focus lenses too, including some 50 years old!
    Steve
     
  11. I didn't say EF-S, I said EF. Anyone buying a full-frame or 1.3x crop Canon DSLR is probably not the target market for an EF-S 55-250.
    As for Nikon's manual lens compatibility, the chart I linked to will show how using 50-year-old Nikon lenses comes with caveats. A 50-year-old lens may mount, but the camera may or may not allow the light meter to work with it. An AF lens may or may not autofocus with an AF body depending on the types and combination of lens and body AF drives. This is not exactly simple.
    If one wants to point to a company that has some real backwards compatibility, look at Pentax. Every SLR lens they've ever made (even the medium format SLR lenses!) mounts and meters on every DSLR they've ever made (sometimes with a $10 adaptor ring), and every AF lens they've made autofocuses on every DSLR they've made. Now that's easy.
     
  12. After Nikon did find the full-frame caravan, it was as if everything Nikon was so perfect and Canon had suddenly fallen hopelessly behind. One area in particular that was touted was low-light, high ISO performance.
    I do not have a Nikon DSLR, and it may be better at low light for all I know, but I accidentally shot a whole bunch of shots last week with the 5D II accidentally set to ISO 12,800:
    http://www.photo.net/photo/11110290&size=lg
    After the first shot or two I dispensed with the tripod for the rest of the shoot. Maybe one has to blow the print up to see the noise. All that I can say is that this (not to mention some others like it in the same folder, mixed in with some made with a 50D at lower ISO) is very "usable' indeed.
    I shall have to try ISO 25,600 and set what I get.
    What I like about the 5D II is that I get incomparable resolution (for the price) and AF that is good enough for my purposes. The D700 might have better low-light, high ISO performance and better AF for all I know, and the D3X might be King of Resolution, but I have got PRETTY CLOSE TO ALL OF THAT in one package, a package that costs about one-third of the D3X, and I like it very much, thank you very much.
    Nikon makes some great gear, and there is no doubt something to be said for having dedicated cameras that are the best in their class for given applications, but there is also something to be said for a camera that is very, very good at darned near everything.
    --Lannie
     
  13. Yes Matt, but if you're putting it like that you could say that all Nikon full frame AF lenses will work with all Nikon AF bodies. If you want to stick to just those lenses then it's as easy as the Canon situation. The Nikon situation is only more complicated because you have more options if you want them. Not great sticking an FD lens on a Canon AF body.
    Steve
     
  14. Not great sticking an FD lens on a Canon AF body.​
    Not to say that some of us did not try--oh, wow, how we tried! No adapter that I bought ever did it for me.
    --Lannie
     
  15. I have done it, but by a very unorthodox route. I have several FD lenses converted for cine use (300 2.8, 500 4.5 and 800 5.6). These get converted into a Universl mount, by removing the entire back section and building a new one. In this way you can put serious screw on adapters to mount the lens on Arriflex, Panasvision, Sony B4 mount etc., as well as Nikon, Leica, EF and any other stills mount you want. In this way I've used these excellent old FD lenses on Canon 20D, Nikon F5, Nikon D3 and many others.
    Steve
     
  16. Yawn.
    The whole "Nikon v. Canon" thing is a giant waste of time and bandwidth. Both companies make excellent photographic equipment, and there are great photographers using the equipment from both of them to produce outstanding photography. There is nothing in the resulting photographic work that lets a viewer determine which brand was used.
    I have good photographer friends who use Nikon and I have photographer friends who use Canon. When we get together to talk photography, "Nikon versus Canon" is about the last topic that we would be interested in... and when it does come up we sort of laugh at ourselves and then return to more interesting and significant topics.
    I'm a Canon user. But if I woke up one morning and found that all of my gear had been replaced by Nikon equivalents my photography would be essentially the same. Well, at least once I learned to turn the ring the opposite direction...
    Pick a brand and get on with the process of making photographs.
    This is a response to the Nikon vs. Canon discussion on the Nikon forum.
    Not exactly. That "response" would be in the forum where the original discussion was taking place. This just spreads the, uh, "joy" of that "discussion" to a new forum. I, for one, do not welcome this distraction.
    Dan
     
  17. so Bruce if you want simplicity, then buy a Leica. All of the small format cameras produce an acceptable final image, but I was led to beleive that Nikon's AF was what made it appealling to you sports shooters.
     
  18. Pick a brand and get on with the process of making photographs.​
    I have had trouble doing that. I still have the sweet, sweet manual focus Nikon 600 f/4 that I got on the auction site in 2006 for pennies on the dollar (and which I do indeed use on Canon bodies with a simple adapter), and I recently bought an old Kodak 14n just so that I can use the few pieces of sweet Nikon glass that I still have. (Don't knock the Kodak: that baby is sweet, pixel for pixel, all fourteen million of them, as long as the light is good and the planets are aligned right.)
    Why not? Other people would have put the money into a retirement account. I can liquidate Nikon glass any time I want and use it in the meantime. I like living in two different worlds. Since I occasionally put Pentax, Zeiss, Pentacon, Hasselblad and who knows what kind of glass on Canon EOS bodies, one might say that I am living in lots of different worlds. I sure do have a lot of adapters, though. . . .
    It might be self-indulgent, but I'm just havin' fun.
    --Landrum
     
  19. Landrum, my point remains. If you like your manual focus Nikon gear - which is wonderful gear - then just go ahead and use it. Or Canon gear. Or a Leica. Or MF. Or LF. Or a four-thirds camera from Olympus.
    Any and all will be preferred by some photographers for reasons that others may or may not share. (For example, while I understand and respect your preference, "sweet manual focus" wouldn't persuade me to switch brands. :) It is the idea that one camera, brand, model, format, or whatever must be proven "best" that is simply pointless in the end.
    Dan
     
  20. My story is that I started film with Nikon and built up the lenses system gradually. In 2006, I pulled the trigger for D2Hs. I like the camera, but wish it had full format sensor. However looking back, I wish that Nikon started FX frame earlier like Canon. It was a short vision by Nikon at the beginning that frustrated a lot of Nikon users. Having said that, I do not mean to jump the ship. On the other hand, nikon catches up and has a couple of front runners for FX frame now. Now it matters to talk to wife for fund.
     
  21. The thread really needed no response. If you enjoy Canon, enjoy. If you enjoy another brand, enjoy.
    This site can be very confrontational.​
    Not my experience at all. Brand battles seem to rare here. Let's keep it like that.
     
  22. "The whole "Nikon v. Canon" thing is a giant waste of time and bandwidth. "
    I agree with you G Dan Mitchell, and yet here we both are contributing to the conversation!
    That is what forums are all about after all, so why not.
    Steve
     
  23. stp

    stp

    I started with Nikon, and it was absolutely the best. For some reason that I can no longer remember, I gradually moved over to Canon, and it was absolutely the best. Then I picked up some more Nikon gear, and for a while the two were equally good. Then for some reason that I can no longer remember, I sold the Nikon gear and then Canon was absolutely the best. It remains so today, unless for whatever reason I switch back to Nikon, at which point it will be absolutely the best. I guess "best" is defined by that which I own and use. In that regard, Pentax 645 and Hasselblad 501cm are also the best. Mamiya 7II used to be the best when I owned it, but it is no longer the best because I sold it.
    I'm sitting here in an airport terminal, and I have to have something to do. Participating in a civil intellectual discussion is a good way to pass the time. Thanks.
     
  24. Steve, I'm not contributing to a discussion of "whether Nikon or Canon is THE BEST!" - I'm here to try to discourage this kind of useless and often eventually angry and confrontational stuff in this forum.
    The best outcome in a thread like this is for people to realize that arguing about whether Nikon or Canon is "best" is quite pointless and ultimately hopeless.
    Dan
     
  25. I agree with the sentiments that Canon and Nikon both produce exceptional cameras and lenses. For me the shift from Nikon to Canon was ultimately a monetary consideration given my photographic interests, particularly in regards to wildlife photography. I used Nikon film SLRs for years, then shifted to Nikon DSLRs for a time. I ultimately made the shift to Canon because their super telephoto lenses tend to be significantly cheaper on the used market. Hiking miles into the backcountry, I also appreciated Canon's more lightweight attempts at fixed f/4 L zooms. Nikon finally has VR in their super teles and is beginning to expand their f/4 zoom range, but it is still difficult to find these at a similar price point to Canon's offerings.
    As far as equipment capacities and ease of use, I honestly think both companies are excellent, though.
     
  26. As to Canon's quality control style:
    http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00Wenq
    should be required reading for all.
     
  27. The only thing worse than the Canon v. Nikon debate is debating whether or not we should have or be having the Canon-Nikon debate.
    Let me say, rather emphatically: it depends. . . .
    My own stance is that we should have the debate, but that we should not be having it.
    Seems pretty obvious to me.
    --Lannie
     
  28. Thanks for the representative sample, Jerry.
    While we are at it, have you guys noticed that the corresponding debate on the Nikon forum is titled,
    Nikon Vs Canon

    Capitalizing that "V" seems deliberately and unnecessarily provocative to me. Nikon shooters are very sly. You have to watch them very carefully, and be careful to count your change if you buy anything from them.
    So there.
    --Lannie
     
  29. Quote "The best outcome in a thread like this is for people to realize that arguing about whether Nikon or Canon is "best" is quite pointless and ultimately hopeless"
    Exactly, and if we're not going to explain that to the OP then who is?! Well worth the discussion so people get the message. Hoorah for Photo.net!
     
  30. We need a permanent "Camera, Lens, and Photographic Disasters" forum. It will be open to persons of all races, creeds, and brand affiliations.
    I'm going over to the Ford v. Chevy forum. . . .
    --Lannie
     
  31. Canon cameras are for engineers while Nikons cameras are for photographers is the term I was accustomed to hearing.​
    I find this humorous since I shoot Canon and have an engineering degree! However, what it comes down to with me and many of my associates is that people tend to stick with whatever brand they started photography with. I prefer to turn my lens to the right when zooming in, and I prefer turning my thumb dial to the right to overexpose. Aside from that, they're just machines that accomplish a task.
     
  32. I should get a Leica? I have Leica film cameras. I prefer Canon because the L lenses, while excellent, are faster and much less expensive. Also I don't use digital for prints. I prefer film and a wet darkroom for that, and usually shoot large format. When you have an 8x10 camera, you are less inclined to spend $20,000 on a few Leica digital bodies and lenses, since the results are far better with LF. About the auto focus on the d700 compared to the 5D2, I wouldn't know. Neither camera focuses fast enough to grab candids on the street with autofocus. But since I almost never shoot on the street any more, I usually use manual focus (in the studio, where 99% of my work is done).
     
  33. The whole "Nikon v. Canon" thing is a giant waste of time and bandwidth.​
    I don't think so. It's quite entertaining for us Pentax, Sigma, Olympus, Hasselblad, Phase One, Leica, Samsung, and Sony owners.
    I kid! I kid!
     
  34. It's quite entertaining for us Pentax, Sigma, Olympus, Hasselblad, Phase One, Leica, Samsung, and Sony owners.
    Now you've crossed the line. Those are all terrible cameras! ;-)
    Dan
     
  35. Most Nikon's are so horrible that I reserve their use for photographing feces. Canon? It's a step up, I'll photograph roadkill with a Canon (the menus are easier to navigate and the L glass is... WOW!). You'll be hard pressed to find anything better than a Minox or a Brownie. You might have to upgrade your digital back on the Brownie to an H1 compatible back, but other than that, it's the best. Simple menus, too. Minox isn't far behind, you might need to get an adapter to put the H1 back on it, though.
     
  36. I'm a dedicated and loyal Nikon user, but agree with Bruce in certain points. I love the Nikkors, old and new except the behemoth big 24-70/2.8 which I have. I love the ergonomic of the Nikon bodies, trying several time my friends Canon, the friend whom was a Nikon user, then switched to Canon and back to Nikon. But the over complicated menu system is a pain on the as. I agree on that 100%. If nikon simplify the menu system like Canon, I bet, they will grab 10 - 20% of the marker share, sure. It is insane losing customers because the stupid complicated menu system.
     
  37. Sorry, the only time this topic could get interesting is if Canon reissues the 7 ( never ). Then again, there would only be kollectors chiming in, and of course none of us do that. :)
     
  38. I'm sorry for your exaspiration, Bruce. That said, I own both the D700 and the 5D mark II, and I can set either of them to the "black and white" preset in about two button presses with a little bit of scrolling in between. However, I would never use the black and white preset, because you have far more options if you shoot in color (in RAW) and do your black and white conversion in post-processing. Think of digital as some magic film that can record any color in the field so you can decide whether to use a No. 11 or a No. 25 back in the darkroom depending on how you want your print to look.
    In addition, BOTH of these cameras have a My Menu area where you can arrange your favorite settings for easy access. Did you program the My Menu on your D700 to toggle between color and B&W presets? How did that work for you?
    Switching between preset modes is digital photography 101; tourists with point-and-shoot cameras can manage to do this and quite a bit more. You can't really appreciate a modern DSLR until you explore advanced topics such as setting Custom White Balance in a room with mixed light sources. If you want to appreciate an advanced camera like the D700, try exploring the built-in Intervalometer (the 5D2 doesn't have one) or the vast array of autofocus options that the Canon doesn't include. Or try to change your exposure compensation setting with one hand - the Nikon is set up to do this, but on the Canon you have to delve into the menu system.
    Don't get me wrong; I love my 5D2, but I spent a lot of time learning the strengths and limitations of both cameras. I didn't ditch one because it was "so confusing," nor would I dismiss a piece of gear because it has "too many menu choices." What would you say to a person who thinks that Ebony cameras are junk because they have too many knobs and who doesn't understand the proper application of tilts and swings? I'd suggest that they go buy some books and learn something about LF before disparaging a camera that they're not in a good position to evaluate.
    I'm glad that you found some gear that meets your needs, but next time maybe think twice before posting pejorative comments about features that you may not have taken the time to understand and fully appreciate.
     
  39. However, what it comes down to with me and many of my associates is that people tend to stick with whatever brand they started photography with.​
    well it didn't happen to me. i started with fuji s7000, then i got my first dslr - nikon d70, unfortunatelly i didn't like the camera/lenses/flashguns etc from nikon... it all started with level of noise, but after i changed over to canon i noticed how much more i prefer their ergonomics, picture colors, etc...
    for last 5 years i've been using canon gear (30d, 5d, 1d 3, 5d2 and various lenses); in january this year i was shooting wedding and i decided to borrow d3s and d3x + some lenses from my friend and see how sweet it is... after all it wasn't as sweet as he was saying. i didn't like - actually i can use "hated" word - the ergonomics, menus, etc... the biggest "no no" was vertical grip on both cameras - because of the lens mount "step" my fingers couldn't rest properly on the grip and i had pain below my wrist for 3 days after wedding... for the type of shooting i do - portrait, fashion, weddings, etc. - i can't see huge difference that everyone claims to see in af operation between the systems. sure, lenses are simply stuning (i had that time 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200 vr mk2) but that was the only thing i liked about nikon system. when i got pictures onto my mac i learnt how much easier is to use dpp over nikon's software - saying that, i don't do any significant adjustments in dpp. it's just basic wb adjustment and little (noramly arond 1/3 stop) exposure tweaking. that's also the reason why i don't understand people moaning about banding noise at low iso in 5d2 - get your exposure right in camera and you won't experience the banding problem.
    so that's my little rant about nikon. as they say "to each their own" - one will love porsche 911, the other jeep wrangler...
     
  40. stp

    stp

    Dan, that I've landed in L.A., your point that "The best outcome in a thread like this is for people to realize that arguing about whether Nikon or Canon is "best" is quite pointless and ultimately hopeless" is exactly what I was saying in a different way. Not only is it pointless, it misses things that are so much more important in photography and getting "good photos."
     
  41. I have been using both Can-on and Nik-on, and others. They are almost the same. And they are both Japanese. I'd love to see an all American DSLR to compete with Nikon and Canon. That would be a much more better competition for me to see
     
  42. I could not decide what to get either, then one day I notice Big Bad Chuck Norris using a Canon, so I had to get one too.
     
  43. I could not decide what to get either, then one day I notice Big Bad Chuck Norris using a Canon, so I had to get one too.​
    Probably the best reason to own Canon.
     
  44. Arnold Pangilinan [​IMG], Jun 13, 2010; 03:57 a.m.
    @Bruce
    Out of curiosity, don't you miss the AF system of D700? Don't get me wrong, I love my 5D (classic) but I wish the outer AF points have been crossed type.​
    FYI Only a center box of AF points on the Nikon D700 are cross points. The outer are single dimension also. They just seem to work a little better than 5D. Maybe the angle of light they allow. Not sure.
     
  45. Not sure I could get an 8x10 to work as well as you for street Bruce, I'll just stick to my small rangefinders. But seriously Bruce, do you really shoot your digicam in B&W mode?
     
  46. I started DSLR's with the D30 when it came upon the market. Had several Canon bodies after that including a 1 Series which I loved. I NEVER had ONE problem with any of the DSLR bodies, unlike some folks. I never found my self particularly challenged in regards to focus accuracy, but then perhaps I wasn't pushing them to the limit. Colors were superb and I found post processing quite easy. I jumped over to Nikon with the D200, subsequently getting a D300 when it was released. I then upped it to a D700 after that and I've since added a D5000 for a 2nd body. I could easily take fine photography with EITHER brand. I am not one that feels the brand will make or break the photographer in most cases. I AM however aware that there are some advantages to the accuracy of the Nikon system overall. It's not earth shattering, and for most it won't make a difference in day to day shooting. Some folks love the color output of the Canon's and others like the accurate color of the Nikon. Either way if you have a clue what you're doing you can do what you wish in the post processing anyway. It's all a personal thing, but I must say I prefer the ergonomics of the Nikon system. Some don't. It's not a big deal. I prefer the consistent shot to shot in focus nature of the Nikon's I've worked with. I know others that have no issues with the Canon, and I'm not surprised. They are BOTH great systems. I DO think that Nikon's flash system is MORE accurate and flexible. But once again for some it's NOT a deal breaker. It is by NO means a war. I could flip a coin and get a good camera today. So it's a "no worries" situation. I was tempted to consider a 5D2, but after working with one decided I preferred my D700 for a good number of reasons. I have NO need for huge resolutions as I don't typically crop much at all and only print to 13x19 anyway. Everyone needs to evaluate their own priorities and buy according to those priorities. I'm good for now that's for sure. The D700 exceeds my needs as it is. I'm still amazed when I shoot with it. It nails what it aims at each and evey time without fail, and the colors delight.........not to mention the shear build quality.
    00WfJx-251635884.jpg
     
  47. Whenever people ask me the question, whats better, a canon or a nikon?
    I tend to say this, I shoot canon. At one point canon is better marginally, at the other nikon is. Canon is easier to me because my dad shot a canon and I grew up using canons so naturally I use cannons. I've invested myself into Canon glass and have no desire to switch to Nikon because the temporary marginal benefit (if there is one at that time) would be nowhere near the marginal cost.
    I also like red more than yellow.
    But thats just me.
    To me its like Subaru vs Mitsubishi in racing or Syrian vs Egyptian when it comes to hookahs, both sides make good products, just let it be.
    (Btw, Go Subaru and Syrian Brass)
     
  48. Let's not do Canon vs Nikon like Chevy vs Ford. I have both systems and both have advantages and disadvantages. Both have superb bodies both amateur and pro. Both have wonderful fast lenses. Canons always impress with an image quality that to me looks a bit cleaner and brighter out of the box compared to it's Nikon equivalents. My D90 shows me more dynamic range than my 5D. The menu system is a personal thing though I prefer Nikon's having used it longer.
     
  49. If you ask me I wish Minolta were still in the picture (not the cheap Sony stuff today that uses Minolta glass.) The closest digital SLR to resemble a film camera was Minolta's last great camera, the Maxxum 7D. It looked and felt just like it's film predecessor. It was ahead of it's time, a marvel at ergonomics...so much that when Nikon released their D200 I noticed how the layout of menus and buttons were placed in very, very similar locations to the 7D. You can look and compare pictures online. I wonder why Nikon or Canon have yet to release a digital SLR that resembles some of their most successful film cameras. I think they would be huge sellers. And some photographers are faster at making adjustments through wheels and turning knobs, than scrolling through menus.
     
  50. @Tom Reynolds
    Thanks
     
  51. I was very happy with Canon until I switched from a PC to a Mac (everyone said the Mac was better!)... now? I don't know... maybe I should switch to Nikon?
     
  52. I had a Canon Powershot point and shoot film camera, and later bought a Canon Rebel SLR, also film. I really liked both cameras, they took great pictures.
    When I finally switched over to digital a couple of years ago I gave Nikon a shot, first with a Coolpix digital point and shoot. When I was ready to buy my first DSLR, I knew it would be either a Canon or Nikon. I looked at both closely and finally decided on the Nikon. I haven't regretted it and I love the camera.
    I really can't say anything bad about either brand. But I find it interesting that Canon's first production camera (1936) used a Nikon lens.
     
  53. Seems pretty ridiculous that you are complaining about switching from color to black & white in camera when you should really do that in post-production anyway. And besides nikon has the "my menu" which lets you put a bunch of menu options in one list for easy access... did you try this?
     
  54. Like Rafael, I would have liked to see Minolta in the DSLR game. I have a Minolta scanner (pre-Konica) and it is superb. Bought a Minolta film camera just before K-M dropped out of the business. Then again, I sprung for a brand new Canon A-1 (still a superb camera, BTW) about two years before they dropped FD for the EOS mount. As a consequence, when I finally went AF, it was a Nikon system purchase for me (F80/N80 and now a D700 - wouldn't part with either of them).
    Sinh - you forgot to mention that CSI always shoot Nikon. I learnt all my technique from those shows (!)
     
  55. So, you switched cameras because the menus? Not, um, because of image quality? Better lens selection? Better DR? Better NR? More resolution? Better skin rendition?
    I have no dog in the Nikon vs Canon fight (they are both excellent) - but it seems to be a curious reason to choose, much less change, the camera line over. It is, if you pardon me, like choosing a car strictly over the font on the odometer.
    Ah well, to each his own I guess.
     
  56. I have to second the views that Matt above, and others here have put forth. The original post seems like a troll, nothing more. Switching cameras because of menus, when one supposedly was a pro? Sorry, lacks the ring of convincing truth to me. There are many reasons to fault Nikon, most obvious of which right now is their appalling management of US inventory, but the stuff mentioned here doesn't do it. I'm surprised this thread wasn't closed, photo.net usually does a good job keeping this sort of garbage out of the mix.
     
  57. Bruce,
    Congrats on starting a thread with useless and provocative name.
     
  58. Wow. Really ?!
    G Dan Mitchell said it best.
    I'm new to owning my own DSLR and have read so many articles on photography and what's the best equipment. It's all a matter of preference. It's what you do with the equipment that really matters.
    Nonetheless, quality equipment is very important to me, and there is plenty to choose from. I choose Canon originally..but when I held the Nikon it just felt better in my hands. Can you imagine if we didn't have any choices ? I guess then'd we'd have nothing to write about...no vs. ?
     
  59. Canon is definitely better than Nikon:
    1. Canon makes their own sensors, Nikon buys their sensors from Sony (after a long time trying to say that they wanted to go with cropped sensors for some good reasons)
    2. Canon lens mount is better than Nikon very confusing lens mount (can I use my AF 50mm lens with a D90 or D3000?, for example)
    Other things are very minor details that can be changed, improved anyday, and they are more for different tastes and habits like: menu, flash auto modes, speeds, shutter clicks rates. How about Nikon lens has to mount on counter clockwise, is that right or wrong? it does bother me though.
     
  60. I think that Pentax has the best mid level prosumer camera - the K 7 with exquisite ergonomy, weather sealing and full backward compatibility and now 760 USD at BH Photo !
    Now kill me!
     
  61. I think it's fun to debate this, so long as people don't get so emotional about it. [standard opening with balanced phrases] I use Nikon, my camera buddy uses Canon. I like both brands. When people ask me for camera advice, I usually listen to what they say and have not issue recommending either (sometimes I recommend Canon).
    [now begins the more partial stuff]
    I like the ergonomics on Nikon better. Every Canon Body, Xsi, right up to 5D Mk. II, feels like a rickety, squeeky, mess to me, as well as their cheaper lenses.
    I like the general features on Canon better. Most/all their cameras, generally speaking, have the same features, like bracketing, excellent video performance (1080P!). Nikon, at times have skimped here and there on some features. The D40/60/3000 doesn't have bracketing, for example. The 40/60 only had 3 autofocus points.
    Back to ergonomics, I like how Nikon (sort of) prefers the thumb wheel over Canon's trigger wheel on budget models. Changing aperture doesn't require you to move the trigger finger with Nikon. Changing ISO on Canon required that you pushed the ISO button, move your index finger off the shutter release to the wheel, turn it, move your finger back to the shutter release, and take the picture. On Nikon, you could do all that and keep your trigger finger on the shutter release. On the mid-end, Nikon has a thumb wheel and a trigger wheel (which I prefer) over Canon's trigger wheel + menu wheel.
    Lens selection: I think Canon has a somewhat broader range of lenses, but irritatingly, it seems like with every category of lens, you get your choice between a cheap, plastic, rickety lens, and a built-like-a-tank $1500 L lens. Nikon seems to walk the middle road a bit better.
    D700 vs. Canon 5D Mk. II: I found it amusing that it was the menu that tilted the balance for the OP. With my friend, Nikon's 'reverse-threading' (clockwise screws the lens out) that broke the deal. But compare cameras for a sec: niether of them are very 'balanced. Yes, the 5D Mk. has a good balance between resolution and high ISO. The D700 skimps on resolution... but for god's sake the D700 is a *machine-gun*, with a super accurate autofocus. You hold the button down, and, a few seconds later, you have 15 pictures of a condor mid-flight.
    Now the Canon 7D vs. the D300s: I've been thoroughly impressed with the 7D. Fast shooting, fast autofocus... overall an amazing camera.
     
  62. Threads like this are quite valuable as they inevitably outline the history of technology of both companies -- the two biggest players in the DSLR field. I ignore Sony and similar. No patience.
    I enjoy the point/counterpoint and some of the mild flaming. Keep it up! (it was the EOS system itself that sold me to Canon 20 years and a month ago) As previously mentioned, lens compatibility -- you need an encyclopedia to figure out Nikon whereas with Canon it's this easy: ALL EF lenses work fine and meter and AF fine on ALL Canon SLRs.
    (and finally, why someone would prefer to shoot in B&W only mode is something I cannot fathom -- it is so much better done in post)
     
  63. If you ask me I wish Minolta were still in the picture (not the cheap Sony stuff today that uses Minolta glass.) The closest digital SLR to resemble a film camera was Minolta's last great camera, the Maxxum 7D.​
    Good, I'm glad Sony stuff is cheap although that doesn't quite explain why I still can't afford most of it :)
    I haven't owned or used a Maxxum 7D (aka 7D the original?) but I do own and use a Sony a700 and that is certainly a very ergonomic and button-friendly design, and very akin to the 7D, if reports from owners of both are to be believed. An almost identical design was carried over to the a850 and a900, although unfortunately it looks increasingly unlikely that Sony will stick with this approach for future prosumer models.
    And what does anything have to do with Canon vs Nikon? I grew up with a Canon AT-1 and a total of 3 (spelled out: three) FD mount lenses. So when the EOS mount came along I obviously could never forgive Canon for letting down one seriously committed customer :)
    Actually it took me quite a while to switch eventually to AF and digital SLR. At which point I naturally chose to buy into the only other system that really shafted their manual focus era customers when AF came along: Minolta/KM/Sony. Why not Canon or Nikon? Thanks to feebay I had started collecting a lot of old manual focus gear from major and minor brands of the 70s and 80s. That taught me nothing about digital photography, but it did teach me about subtle differences in ergonomics as well as the relative unimportance of choosing any particular single brand. As with all things electronic, there's no telling what surprises will come out next, but so far I've been entirely happy with my choice, and if I weren't then I wouldn't hesitate to graze other RGB pastures.
     
  64. ALL EF lenses work fine and meter and AF fine on ALL Canon SLRs.​
    I should also note that I have a Canon film camera. Back when Canon introduced the EF mount, they completely abandoned the FD mount, and all the FD camera bodies and lenses are now swimming around Ebay. I bought a 50mm f/1.4 for $40.
    I'm sure the people who paid money for Canon's FD equipment way back then were extremely pissed when Canon did the big "F U," but ultimately it's been good for me, since I can scoop up this equipment really cheap (and good for Canon too, I think).
    I do think that Canon's mount is more modern than Nikon's mount, but look at it another way: you can mount a 1977 manual focus lens on a D300s, and it will work perfectly. You cannot screw in a 1978 FD lens onto a Canon EF camera. There are no cheap adaptors... the adaptors require corrective optics: they are rare and *very* expensive.
    This means that a 1977 Nikon 50mm f/1.4 lens will go for $100 or more on ebay, because you can still use it with a D300. A 1978 Canon 50mm f/1.4 only goes for $40, because there are so few modern cameras that can use it.
    I grew up with a Canon AT-1 and a total of 3 (spelled out: three) FD mount lenses. So when the EOS mount came along I obviously could never forgive Canon for letting down one seriously committed customer :)
    Such as this fellow right here!
     
  65. Hi Everyone
    I've worked with both Nikon and Canon cameras professionally as well as Leica's, Mamiya's and a Toyo 5x4 camera. I just never get the point of this debate. I defy anyone to tell the difference between a picture taken on a Canon and Nikon DSLR of similar cost / spec. All modern DSLR's are capable of taking great pictures as are 60 year old film cameras.
    Buy which ever camera you like best then use it as much as possible. Don't be conned into upgrading every year by the manufacturers - the megapixel race is just a marketing ploy in many respects. I still use my 5D alongside my 5D MK2 and the difference is quality at say A4 is very hard to spot. OK newer camera's have less noise at higher ISO's but who wants to shoot at ISO 6400 anyway unless you really have to.
    I've just bought a Panasonic G1 for family snaps and when I want to travel light with a small compact camera that's unobtrusive then it beats my 5D MK2!.
    Best regards
    David
    www.david-thrower.blogspot.com
     
  66. I was looking at this earlier, wondering (rather academically as I couldn't afford to anyway) whether the switch to nikon could be beneficial. Rather than taking the body POV though, it's a matter of lenses and here is where nikon are lagging for my purposes.
    1) UW Zoom. I have a 17-40 F4L. Nikon have finally answered this with their 16-35 F4 VR. On paper the nikon looks a better lens, although significantly heavier and more expensive. Advantage Nikon
    2) 50mm/ I have a 50 F1.8 mk I. I suspect this is no better or worse than the nikon 50 F1.8. Draw
    3) Standard Zoom. 24-105 F4L IS. This is a lens that nikon have no answer to - the 24-120 is a consumer-grade lens akin to the 28-135IS, the nikon 24-85 F2.8-4 has no USM nor IS and if I wanted the weight and expense of a 24-70 F2.8, canon could equally oblige. Advantage Canon
    4) Telezoom. I have a 70-200 F4L. I want the F4L IS. Nikon, however, only offer serious 70-200s in F2.8. Again, I don't want the weight. Advantage Canon
    5) (Super)Tele. 300 F4L IS. Nikon do have the AFS 300 F4 now, which it took them long enough to come out with, but the lack of VR kills it - I find IS invaluable in this lens. Advantage Canon
    So... without even looking at the bodies, I find my lens selection pretty firmly puts me in the direction of canon.
    I think that Nikon are doing some great things - they have some wonderful bodies while the 14-24 and 200-400 are lenses that canon users can only turn green over. If I could afford the 200-400 then that would be a seriously compelling lens, but as it is I find myself happy with what I have.
    Now... how to afford that 70-200 F4L IS and the 300 F2.8L IS....
     
  67. When are we going to just eyeroll at these threads. They are simply useless. I am a confirmed Nikon user. I am a confirmed Nikon user becase when I started buying serious gear in 1973 there were only two choices and Paul Simon was singing about Nikon. I still have that F/1.4 mentioned above and sometimes use it. Canon's decision to change lens mounts did not bother me at all as I was a Nikon guy. Why change? Had I been a Canon user I probably wouldn't have changed anyway. I am a loyal guy.
    So the unpopular rant is this. No one who has posted on this thread takes any better pictures because they are a Canon/Nikon user. Myself included. Maybe Canon makes a lens that shoots around corners and Nikon doesn't but none of us really give a damn. Perhaps the autofocus system of a D700 is a convenience and maybe the Canon 1DS MARK zillion runs on earwax but none of that makes a bit of difference in the long run. If we are good photographers then we can take great pictures with an Argus C-3. If we suck we can't take good pictures with a Hasselblad CFV-39 39 Megapixel Digital Back on a CM500 backed up by a personal assistant carrying an array of Hasse's best glass. (Though we will look very cool, particularly if we have a nice vest and avaitor glasses.)
    These threads are oh so tiring. We all know that we can't buy a game and that 50% of our equipment spending beyond a Rebel or D40 would be better spent on training.
    Which is better? Nikon or Canon? Well. For wedding photography maybe it is Denis Reggie and he shoots Canon. Or maybe you need a nice portrait. You might consider Gene Martin and he shoots Nikon. They both seem to have done fairly well. Maybe even that Sony shooter Nigel Barker has a shot at success. Unless he reads this thread and gets nervous.
     
  68. I tried to stay out of this one because I both like Canon and Nikon. Come to think about it I like some features on Pentax, Olympus, Sony... I also switched to Canon after a 15 year stint with Nikon Cameras. I still own a Nikon FM2 and FE2 as my security blankets. One thing I noticed throughout the years especially with with the mid-leve prosummer cameras is that if you put a Canon camera and a Nikon camera which are similarly priced next to each other, the Canon looks like "plain-jane" next to the Nikon. The Nikon camera seems more robust has more features and overall looks more like a professional camera than the Canon. Not that anyone would use all of the features but they are nice to have. I'm not saying that a Nikon will out perrform the Canon, because there are other things involved like lenses, skill etc, but sometimes as a Canon user you wonder if you are missing something.
    I didn't have the same problem that Bruce had, because I had practice with a Canon film camera prior to going digital. At first it was hard getting use to that little wheel on the back of the camera(Elan II), but now I love it. With the 7D I can say that Canon finally did not cut any corners and gave us a true semi-pro camera. The Canon 30D, 40D, 50D all failed in that department in my opinion. Even the EOS-3 had more features than these cameras.
     
  69. I think and respectfully tell you that this is seriously RIDICULOUS!. shoot what makes you happy... but for a person to post this type of VS threads just makes me wonder,,,, are you a photographer? go shoot a Diana or a Holga you will still have the same doubs and problems you face right now. dont waste time.
     
  70. I do think that Canon's mount is more modern than Nikon's mount, but look at it another way: you can mount a 1977 manual focus lens on a D300s, and it will work perfectly. You cannot screw in a 1978 FD lens onto a Canon EF camera. There are no cheap adaptors... the adaptors require corrective optics: they are rare and *very* expensive.​
    To be honest, that's simply not discussing the subject in full. Canon released an adaptor for their EOS bodies so consumers could use the adapter in full. It was a bit pricy then, but now the reason for its price difference is because Canon thought, silly them, that you might finally give in and upgrade. If you want, there are a ton of ones to be had and if you can get an elephoto, its not that bad. Arguing Nikon's sake on the lens issue is just ridiculous. Canon has been using the same mount for the last 20 years now. If you really want some old glass, why not just continue to use the old camera body too? Have you ever taken a step back and looked at a Nikon compatibility chart?
     
  71. People say Nikon have backward compatibility, but try mounting a 70-200VRII on a Nikon F4. Modern DSLR's certainly don't work well as their older cameras do with manual focus lenses, so I tend to think that the whole "Canon not backwards compatible" thing is a non issue.
     
  72. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    Hey, I took this with a Canon. Can someone tell me how it would be better with a Nikon? Or if I took it with a Nikon, how it would be better with a Canon?
    [​IMG]Bay Bombers
    It's a good thing this post happened, I might never know what to do.
     
  73. Note to moderators: Shouldn't there be a 'more beating of dead horses' forum especially for threads like this or the endless film-vs-digital?
     
  74. My two cents.. My first new 35 mm SLR was an Exacta VX500. It worked, but it was absolutely garbage, and everything from the lens mount to the shutter wore out to the point of failure with normal use over a year or two. I like them for reasons better explained by the "Stockholm Syndrome", but they really are junk cameras. Despite their many quirks, a new Kiev MF camera is a gem compared to an Exacta. I want another one though, as it was my first new SLR, and I'm a sap for the entire Exacta story line.
    My first "real" SLR was a Canon FTb. I still have it, 40 years later. Canon builds great cameras. I like Canon glass, both FD, and EOS. I might be in the minority, but I applaud Canon for making the jump to the EOS mount, despite the implications to my lifetime of FD cameras to that point. I never had a reason to shop for Nikon, as Canon has always delivered for me. Even in this current day, I simply prefer Canon gear to Nikon, and I even prefer the way that Canon gear feels in my hands over Nikon. That is a subjective matter, and it doesn't surprise me to read that Nikon enthusiasts prefer Nikon ergonomics over Canon. Imagine that.....
    I have a few Nikon models on display, and even though I have never shot a picture with a Nikon camera that I have owned, I have used many Nikon cameras owned by friends and peers who happen to prefer Nikon to Canon. It's a fun thing to swap gear with friends, and beat each other up over their "poor" equipment choice later in the day. The bottom line is that I have no desire to own a Nikon working kit, but I pray that Nikon answers every Canon advance, and raises the stakes a bit higher at the same time. I know that Canon will do the same when Nikon captures the lead for a time.
    I also prefer Canon glass to Nikkor glass by a slight margin, but there is really no point in nit-picking between two lens brands that constantly remain at the top of the game for decades on end, as both brands are locked into a competitive drama that will never end up with a clear victor. Thank God for that, as we all win.
    The truth is, I like Canon for the long term, while some of my friends prefer Nikon. Personal loyalty is deserved in each case, but it is the constant competition between the two brands (including other brands now) that makes both brand camps win in the end. Without a worthy adversary like Nikon to compete against, Canon might never have even thought of developing the F1 series, the T-90, or the EOS line at all. I have no intention to buy a Nikon camera to take pictures with, but if Nikon fell on hard times for some reason, I would support them with my Dollars in a heartbeat. Without Nikon, Canon would not have had to work so hard, and risk so much. Without Canon, Nikon would be in the exact same situation.
    All of us at the front lines of photography would be in a different reality today. If push came to shove, and my Canon kit happened to be replaced with a Nikon kit in the morning, I would still be fine, as I would adapt to the differences (I would paint over that red stain on the grip though. Nikon is into visual trademarks that adorn basketball shoes, and I can't deal with that), but I would still hope that the competition would resume as soon as possible. No matter which brand you prefer, or would die for (I met a few from each camp who might), it took both brands to deliver the level of camera tech we all enjoy today. And it's cheap, too.....
    I love Canon, and I hate Nikon. Long live Nikon!
     
  75. To be honest, that's simply not discussing the subject in full. Canon released an adaptor for their EOS bodies so consumers could use the adapter in full. It was a bit pricy then, but now the reason for its price difference is because Canon thought, silly them, that you might finally give in and upgrade. If you want, there are a ton of ones to be had and if you can get an elephoto, its not that bad. Arguing Nikon's sake on the lens issue is just ridiculous. Canon has been using the same mount for the last 20 years now... Have you ever taken a step back and looked at a Nikon compatibility chart?​
    Well, yes, of course I have. It takes a bit of sifting, but for me it really boils down to two things: Every new lens Nikon lens I buy now will meter on my Nikon camera. Every new Canon lens I buy now will meter on my Canon camera (yes, I have a Canon body). If I went out and bought a 1977 manual focus lens, it will meter on my Nikon camera. The 1978 FD mount manual focus lens I have in my hand right now will not even *mount* on an EF camera (and let's be realistic, I'm not about to pay $1000 for an EF-FD adaptor).
    Canon has been using the same mount for the last 20 years now. If you really want some old glass, why not just continue to use the old camera body too?​
    Simple question, simple answer. The FD lenses are built like tanks. Seriously. I can use old glass on a *digital* Nikon body. Somebody find me a Canon digital FD mount camera (so in short, I have no choice *but* to use it on an old camera body).
    When are we going to just eyeroll at these threads. They are simply useless... Which is better? Nikon or Canon? Well.​
    I think most certainly the differences are scant such that it really boils down to personal preference. Even if a camera is marginally, quantifiably, better than another, it rarely makes a difference in real world conditions, and most obviously, the actions of the photographer make *much* more difference than any of these comparisons. However, there *are* differences... and it can be fun to discuss them, so long as people don't get their egos bruised.
    Put another way, if you throw two individuals into a gun dual, and give one guy a Sig Sauer 556, and the other a H&K 416, who ultimate dies depends vastly on who has better experience and training....... but gun nuts still have tons of fun discussing the differences!
    Hey, I took this with a Canon. Can someone tell me how it would be better with a Nikon? Or if I took it with a Nikon, how it would be better with a Canon?​
    Without knowing the baseline conditions, it's hard to speculate, althought the improvements, if any, are probably marginal. Plus, it's much easier discussing how to improve a bad picture than how to improve a good picture.
    Nikon is into visual trademarks that adorn basketball shoes, and I can't deal with that
    Such as basketball shoes and red rings around lens fronts? =) I jest... I probably have a looser affiliation with Nikon than you to Canon, but likewise, if Nikon imploded, I would shed a tear, shrug, and go on a Canon shopping spree. I could really enjoy either, I just happened to pick Nikon at a time when its ergonomics were key to me, and built a platform around it.
     
  76. 4) Telezoom. I have a 70-200 F4L. I want the F4L IS. Nikon, however, only offer serious 70-200s in F2.8. Again, I don't want the weight. Advantage Canon
    Nikkor 70-300 AF-S VR 4.5-5.6G IF-ED. OK, it's slightly slower, but a fabulous lens for little money, so we'll call it a draw.
     
  77. No, we won't... the analogous Canon lens is the 70-300 USM IS. The AFS VR 70-300 doesn't offer internal zoom, tripod mount or F4 aperture at 200mm. For my purposes I don't need my zoom to go to 300 (having the 300 F4).
     
  78. I S - point taken! We can probably agree that Nikon are lagging in terms of modern FF VR glass, although they are slowly rolling out (mainly high-end) goodies with nanocoating etc. The mid-ground is still rather sparse, as you pointed out, and it is unclear when they will be filling the gaps.
    For my hobby purposes, "good" well-trusted consumer-grade glass seems to work pretty nicely, and allows me to carry my stuff and continue shooting - whereas huge, heavy (expensive) "pro" zooms would be a definite disincentive. (I'd still love an extreme UW prime, but can't justify one for the limited use it would get).
     
  79. Indeed. Like I said, I think Nikon are coming out with some fantastic lenses - the 14-24 and 200-400 are both great and the latter is a lens I would very much like. It is just that for my purposes, shooting the things I shoot in the way that I shoot them, Canon on balance have the better lens selection for me. YMMV and all that...
    My real point was that when making the comparison between manufacturers people place far too much emphasis on the body. I was talking to a colleague earlier who has a Pentax K7, which from all I've read is a very nice handling body. I've read good reviews of the Sony A900 body also. However, in both those cases those manufacturers do not offer anything in the big/fast glass market, nor anything like the range of specialist lenses that Nikon and Canon do. I think it's most important to build the system around what you need, rather than try to build around a particular body. For example, if you were set on extensive use of tilt-shift lenses then no matter how much you preferred the Sony A900 over the 5D II, the 5D II would remain the better choice.
     
  80. I am about as stupid as they get with electronics and have never had an issue with the Nikon Menu!
    When I get bored, instead of coming here and bashing the other brand, I go out and take pictures.
     
  81. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    I guess nobody can tie any brand to the quality of a photograph, so what's the point? Isn't photography supposed to be about photographs?
     
  82. I do understand the frustration with the myriad of menu's with Nikon though I've been using a D80 for quite some time and have gotten quite used to them as some menu's can be customized. In the world of digital photography I don't understand why anyone would want to shoot in B&W anyways. Throwing away all that colour information seems ridiculous to me. Photo's should be converted to B&W in post-production while saving a copy in colour. When my client's request B&W images I give them both, because clients have been known to change they're minds.
     
  83. zml

    zml

    I can use old glass on a *digital* Nikon body.​
    You mean "old, manual focus, Nikon glass"? Oh yes, but you need a big lens-body compatibility chart. You know, some lenses will mount but not meter and focus only if you are swinging from a tree by your tail holding the camera in your teeth...
     
  84. C-V-N discussions. Like watching dorks arguing with nerds as to who has the best techniques to pick up girls.
     
  85. I was talking to a colleague earlier who has a Pentax K7, which from all I've read is a very nice handling body. I've read good reviews of the Sony A900 body also. However, in both those cases those manufacturers do not offer anything in the big/fast glass market, nor anything like the range of specialist lenses that Nikon and Canon do. I think it's most important to build the system around what you need, rather than try to build around a particular body. For example, if you were set on extensive use of tilt-shift lenses then no matter how much you preferred the Sony A900 over the 5D II, the 5D II would remain the better choice.​
    Ok this is a common argument for those who are not well versed in other systems, and it has been deflated often enough before, but since this thread is all about flogged horses we might as well give it a go again:
    The argument of limited versus wide lens range can just as easily be turned on its head. Sony and Pentax have a huge array of good glass available including highly specialized lenses - take a look at the lens databases in www.dyxum.com to see what all works on Sony for example. The difference is that you may in some cases have to figure out/be willing to invest in lenses that are not made new anymore (eg the Minolta 600 f4 apo) or stick with third party offerings (eg Sigma 500 f4.5) or be resourceful enough to adapt other options (eg using the Mirex tilt/shift adapter for Mamiya lenses).
    On the other hand, Sony has the world's only 500 f8 AF mirror lens and 30mm f2.8 macro, as well as the stupendously sharp 70-400 f4-5.6 G and Carl Zeiss lenses. That includes lenses that are much more affordable and much more relevant to frequent use by the vast majority of digital photographers than any same-brand specialist supertele or tilt-shift lens. And because of sensor stabilization they all come with a few stops gain while handholding.
    So much like body quality/functions, for the large majority of us true lens range is in reality not nearly as decisively different among brands as all that, even for those among us who do research and understand their present and future needs well before committing to any one system. What has been (and continues to be) lacking in other brands from the perspective of certain specialized types of genuine pros, is a well-established support system similar to what Nikon and Canon provide - although that really is only relevant for the tiny fraction of us who can establish and maintain successful careers in sports/wildlife/war photography etc.
    Obviously if you're at the other end of the scale, starting out and not knowing yet how far & which directions photography will take you to, then you really can't go wrong buying into one of the market leading systems.
    Being a safe choice certainly does not mean those are the only good choices, however, eg at the moment the Pentax K-x or K20D appear to be well ahead of the pack in many price/value respects for first-time DSLR buyers. The assumption that people should and do choose systems based on specialist lens options is a faulty one. Canon's recent dip in SLR market share suggests that more beginners are doing their own research, rather than just buying off the shelf whatever SLR model happens to be on sale this week in walmart or costco.
     
  86. I used Nikon for years but switched because of the Mark II. The other benefit is the super sharp 24-105mm. I love that lens. Other than that I really don't see much of a difference. I guess I could have waited for a Nikon version of the Mark II. I really prefer the build and ergonomics of Nikon.
     
  87. A couple of ways to stay away from the fight of "Canon vs. Nikon":
    1. Own both brands, or
    2. neither of them.
     
  88. Folks, just give it a rest. Sheesh.
     
  89. So many brands..... so little time!
     
  90. I guess nobody can tie any brand to the quality of a photograph, so what's the point? Isn't photography supposed to be about photographs?
    A 1" grouping on a paper target with an H&K P2000 pistol is undistinguishable from a 1" grouping with a Sig Sauer P226. Firearms are ultimately about groupings. But enthusiasts have a great time talking about the guns themselves.
    In general, the Nikon vs. Canon discussion really isn't a huge deal, much for the reasons you mention, but it is something fun to discuss as long as people can carry the conversation with civility, be objective, and not view it as an assault to their ego (though I understand that frequently, such conversations turn ugly). It's also a huge waste of time........ but so are many forums.
    You mean "old, manual focus, Nikon glass"? Oh yes, but you need a big lens-body compatibility chart. You know, some lenses will mount but not meter and focus only if you are swinging from a tree by your tail holding the camera in your teeth...​
    Do you know how often I've used that compatibility chart? Not once. It's just something you glance at when you're curious. The fact remains that all my friends who use Nikon, we borrow lenses from each other and they all work. No chart checking. When we rent a lens? Again... no chart checking.
    I will reiterate that I think Canon's move to EF was a good thing, both for Canon and for photography in general. The EF mount is a great design, and specifically for me, 'obsolete' state of the FD mount means I have all these old, well designed lenses and cameras that I can buy on the cheap.
     
  91. I guess nobody can tie any brand to the quality of a photograph, so what's the point? Isn't photography supposed to be about photographs?
    -Jeff Spirer
    Exactly the point, I fully agree with you. By the way Jeff, that is a nice photograph you have posted. But of these two beautiful women who is Canon and who is Nikon?
     
  92. Too bad the derby girls weren't wearing their favorite cameras. And not much else!
     
  93. [joke] Orange and white is canon, because its giving the purple (nikon), a smack down. [/joke]
     
  94. I'm absolutely convinced - because it is Tuesday - that Ninon is better than Cakon, or maybe it was the other way around? But Mintax and Pony are in competition with Solympus being better if it is Wednesday. And before noon. Or something.
    Derby girls? Did someone mention derby girls?
    And why is a duck a duck? Because one leg is both the same...
     
  95. WOW!
    Well, here's what I want. I want a camera with the soul of the Nikon, but with the excellent lens choices of the Canon, but with the ergonomics of the Olympus E3... THAT would be a camera.
    Seriously, a lot of companies make great cameras.
     
  96. Jeff, it's really easy to tell in your photo here that the Canon gal is giving the Nikon chic a beating...
    00WgDN-252187684.jpg
     
  97. The only reason anyone ever bought a Canon is because the store was probably sold out of Nikon.
     
  98. Oh man, this thread keeps getting better.
    00WgE8-252197584.jpg
     
  99. The only reason anyone ever bought a Canon is because the store was probably sold out of Nikon.​
    So, we've found the dork. Just waiting for the nerd.....
     
  100. Jeff, it's really easy to tell in your photo here that the Canon gal is giving the Nikon chic a beating...​
    From my perspective, it looks like the girl on the right is holding both cameras, and the girl on the left is trying to grab the D3 =P.
     
  101. Its amazing that someone actually finds the menu system as the main con on the D90 and D700. My first DSLR was the D90 and I found it incredibly easy to navigate and adjust on the fly. Im in the class of serious amateurs and I thoroughly researched DSLRs for MANY months before settling on the D90. In fact, I started researching with a bias for Canons and ended up changing my preference after reading reviews on the Nikons. None of this takes away from the fact that Canon makes excellent cameras as well. However in the category I was buying in, the D90 received the best performance and handling reviews beating the Canons in its class. In technology markets, equipment eventually reaches a point where features are ubiquitous and standard. The dedicated photographer sees the camera as a tool, just as the artist sees the brush. Its understood that the quality of your equipment impacts the quality of your shots. In this case since both manufacturers are at the least, comparable in terms of quality and features, Id say that there's no need to debate this.
     
  102. What a way to spend a beautiful, sunny Wednesday morning . . . aroma of fresh brewed Coffee sifting through the air . . . Nothing noteworthy or rewarding to read about on MSNBC . . .
    Oh, wait a minute! I smell something else . . .
    I am a confirmed Nikon user. I am a confirmed Nikon user becase when I started . . .​
    Great entertainment here! Better than listening to an old "Red Skeleton" show.
    Oh, by the way . . . "I am a confirmed Nikon user becase . . ."
    Becase what?
     
  103. Becase what?
    Bacase "Coffee" is spelled with a lower case "C?" ;-)
    (Always check you're spelling cafully when pionting out the erors of other poster's. :)
     
  104. Trolls, grow up.
     
  105. Petrana,
    We did!
    We grew up as "C" users! And find this thread very amusing & entertaining!
    It just needs a "brake" every once in awhile!
    G Dan,
    (Always check you're spelling cafully when pionting out the erors of other poster's. :)
    Gee Whiz Dan!
     
  106. I think, Stephen put it right, the only problem, many of us do not understand. The best camera is the one you producing a good image, being those a 10,000 dollar camera or a 100 dollar camera, a Canon, Nikon or anything. I noticed, photographing with a Canon a day, I get used to it and my images I can't differentiated from my Nikon shoots. The problem for many, is; aperture/departure & f-stop/bus-stop.
     
  107. I think we've said all that really needs to be said on this topic (in fact probably much more than needs to be said!).
    My advice would be to out and take some pictures using whatever equipment you have and stop obsessing over gear.
     

Share This Page

1111