Why most PROS use Canon than Nikon?

Discussion in 'Casual Photo Conversations' started by gtamdo, Mar 6, 2009.

  1. Hi
    As photojournalism interested would like to ask question?
    As I know both Nikon and Canon camera and lences are best of all.
    I have being using Nikon D70s for 3 years now and I would say I am satisfied but thinking of upgrading one step up, and also thinking of switching to Canon 40 or 50D which give me better view on screen and ofcus more mp.
    Many people say Nikon is good, but why do I see most of the Pro photojournalist use Canon more than Nikon? Does it mean Canon is better for photojournalism and documentary?
    Thanks for your responses.
     
  2. rnt

    rnt

    Incoming! Hit the deck!!!
    Out of self preservation I'll only observe that Canon had the foresight to paint their lenses white which makes them stand out in a crowd...
     
  3. pmj

    pmj

    I think you'll find recent Nikons to have quite a nice viewfinder, except, maybe, entry-level cameras. I would not worry too much about megapixels and more about what lenses you want to get, which system feels best in your hands etc.
    Canon tends to lead the pack, which may be because it's a bigger company, or a different philiosophy. Anyway, they had USM lenses and it took Nikon a while to catch up with the AF-S lenses. Something similar with IS and VR, low-noise digital camera sensors, full frame etc.
    I think that in recent years, however, Nikon has become competitive again. If there are more pros using Canon, it may also be because an investment in Canon gear. Even if cameras and lenses are just tools, I would guess that they will have to suffice for a few years before moving on.
     
  4. To add to what Patrick said, for many years Canon's dslrs were much better than Nikon's in features and image quality, but with the recent release by Nikon of their D300/D90, D3, D700 and D3X their cameras are now as good, if not better, than Canon's offerings, though the Canon 5D II is selling much better than Nikon's high end cameras because it is a much better camera for the money.
     
  5. I think the general consensus is that:
    1) They don't.
    2) Sport photojournalists probably do use Canon over Nikon due to bettery A/F speed.
    3) Herd mentallity exists with photographers just as much as other places.
    As a dedicated Nikon user I can safely say that Nikon is one of the top two brands out there. Canon users can be sure of the same. Use what works best for YOU. For me it is ergonomics, my investment in lenses, and imho better (according to my tastes) color rendition. For someone else, different things could drive different decisions.
     
  6. A funny thing, along these lines...
    I shoot both a Nikon D300 and D700. I was covering for a local publishing company a High School State tournament Girls basketball game, where i was one of 6 Photographers coerving the game for our repsctive publications. Out f the 6 of us, there were 3 Nikon shooters, and 3 Canon SHooters. All Nikon shooters were using D300's( plus my D700), all without flash. 2 of the Canon Shooters were using 1dMkIII's and 1 was shooting a 40D, all using flash. I knew most of the other SHooters there, and one, which i have dones some work with, asked how i liked the D700. I showed him some of my shots, which I shot during this game at ISO4000. He was amazed to see the results, without flash, out if this camera, at ISO4000. HE indicated to me that he gets junk on anything over ISO1600 out if his markIII.
    So, i do believe this trend, of more Canon than Nikon at sporting events, is changing.
     
  7. Where to start...?
    "As I know both Nikon and Canon camera and lences are best of all."..... Not true. You need to reconsider "what you know"
    The truth is this: ALL professional photographers shoot with.....wait for it................."Whatever suits their NEEDS"
    Take the blinkers off and have a look at the real world.....
     
  8. To start, I'm a Nikon user. I started with Canon in the early 80's but switched to Nikon because of the features I wanted. Mostly for the flash sync of 1/250th.
    But, if you take notice of sporting events, National Geographic and other wildlife photography events, quite often, Canon is a major sponsor. Canon pays out tremenous amounts of sponsor money and gives out and makes available, large amounts of equipment at no charge to photographers. This gives them a huge presence in the professional field and everyone takes notice of their equipment because of the color difference of the lenses. Plus Canon video equipment is used to video the events.
    They also produce some awesome photographs and videos. A good example is Art Wolfe and his videos.
    I can't recall if I've ever seen any such evenys sponsored by Nikon.
     
  9. Photo quality for newspapers and some magazines do not require the very higest quality (as, say, National Geographic), so the emphasis is often more on A/F speed, rapid fire speed and maximum number of shots at high speed, white balance adjustment ease and other features. Canon and Nikon make some great lenses, and a wide variety of them, but these are certainly not better than the best of some other manufacturers.
     
  10. Some would say that Leica is the best camera in the world.
    But just like Bob said, "The truth is this: ALL professional photographers shoot with.....wait for it................."Whatever suits their NEEDS""
    And with the exception of how much money I have available, that's exactly what I do.
     
  11. fld

    fld

    Well I appreciate the technical expertise of those who have commented here, but I am an amateur, and happy to remain so. In film I shoot antiques, e.g National Graflex for MF, Leica i in 35mm, and for digital I shoot mostly Kodak. As most of my larger prints are just 16x20 I have no problem blowing them up from a 5 Mpixel file.
    But I hope those of you who can afford the pro equipment continue to use it well.
    Larry
     
  12. Many people say Nikon is good, but why do I see most of the Pro photojournalist use Canon more than Nikon?​
    They probably don't jump from brand to brand at every upgrade like photo forum amateurs do?
    Just kidding
     
  13. so much depends on what lenses you have stockpiled. the point and shoot market is ruled by canon and the dslr market is dominated by nikon. sports journalists do tend to use canon rather more. it is hard to tell what is the best pro camera.
     
  14. One word - Momentum.
    Momentum, in this case, is manifested in money invested in a multi-part system, of which the cam (body) is only one part. Nikon lenses don't work with Canon, and vice-versa.
    Whatever the status is, at this moment, it will change in a few minutes. Canon will reverse-engineer Nikon's new noise canceling algorithm, and add it in a firmware update. Or vice-versa.
    It's only the brand new people that really have a choice... or the filthy rich. I wonder how many brand new people make informed decisions, as opposed to being biased by what a friend has, etc. Not tooo many, I would guess.
    And, lastly, provided that you don't intend/need to do "specialty" things - like trying to shoot where there's not enough light (then complain about the results!) - the choice is mooot. You will get an image that you can make very nice, in post, from ither of these cams or several more brands like Sony, Pentax, Olympus...
     
  15. Canon was more serious about marketing to pro digital photogs early in the game. It took Nikon a while longer to jump on the bandwagon.
    Also the "big white" lenses and the red bands -- higher visibility.
     
  16. At the time when a lot of large news organizations were needing to outfit staff, Canon had the better digital bodies. So they went with Canon. I used Canon until Nikon could come out with a real 35mm sensor camera and as soon as Nikon did, all the Canon stuff was sold off.
    The Nikon system I use is much, much better for me than the Canon system can be, I mix mechanical film bodies with modern digital bodies, something I can not do with Canon.
     
  17. Perception is the reality. :)
    What is funny here PMA numbers was something like less than 8% percent difference here. There are a couple of things to remember. I would not base anything right now off what you are seeing on TV. Or for that matter by what you are see the press is carrying.
    Two reasons come too mind.
    (1) Canon paid an advertising agreement with the NFL to make it mandatory for any photographer on the field to wear a photovest with Canon colors on the sidelines. This included the Nikon Shooters. If I was a skeptic I might say that tells a lot about Canon systems if you have to force photographers to wear your colors, but that would be wrong.
    (2) The days of newspapers and other publications buying the latest and best has faded. In my area I (Independent Contractor) am shooting against Gannett, Lee, and McClatchy are shooting systems older than 2-5 years.
    What is funny is it has less to do with marketing and more to do with legacy. In this case AF. It was not until the mid 90's did Nikon start making effective AF cameras systems. So a lot of institutions bout Canon in the 90's and will likely never switch.
    I have shot both systems for newspapers. Prefer Nikon for but that is my disclaimer. I do use Canon video systems.
     
  18. Mike Earussi
    "...for many years Canon's dslrs were much better than Nikon's..."
    I don't dispute the fact that Canon was leading the way, but I find that comment interesting because DSLRs have only been with us for about 10 years now, and even those first $2,000 "consumer" DSLRs were out only 6-7 years ago. Funny how that seems so long ago.
     
  19. Leica make the best lenses in the world.
    Sports photogs use Canon and Nikon because they are simply the right tool for the job. They are not the right tool for the job for studio/fashion (medium format) or landscape (large format) or street/pj (rangefinder). Of course you can use a 35mm slr for all of these just as you can use an adjustable wrench to bang a nail in.
     
  20. I agree with Robert it s about painting there lens a light colour ,it is all about advertizing ! and canon know how to do it,i do not know much about Nikon cameras but if they had painted there lens a light colour then all the cameras would be Nikon ,they are both good cameras ,good advertizing sells !
     
  21. If you asked the same question in the '70s and early 80s, you'd got a completely different answer. Beginning from 1982 (World soccer cup in Spain), Canon started an effort to target sport and action professional phptographers. When AF was developed, Canon decision to put AF motors inside the lenses turned out to be a winning one, because it allowed to target the AF system to the individual lens. Also, specific services (1 hour development, lens rental, ...) were provided for photographers at sponsored events. The switch from a system to another is not a decision that a professional photographer takes lightly, it is not just a matter of buying a couple of bodies and two lenses. But thanks to this, Canon was able to convert many professionals to their system, while Nikon kept a position in the fashion and photojournalism, because of its at that time superior, flash capability. Another winning move of Canon was the introduction of full frame digital, which converted many wedding photographers and wide angle shooters. Nowadays maybe the two systems are more or less the same in terms of performance and, being no real advantage to jump from one wagon to the other, professionals keep shooting with the system they have the equipment of, as long as it meets their needs.
     
  22. As I know both Nikon and Canon camera and lences are best of all.​

    I think you should try to expand your knowledge base... Zeiss, Leica, Rodenstock, Schneider. The list goes on and on. Canon and Nikon are certainly the best known names to consumers but not necessarily the best performers.
     
  23. Moreover, if Canon, Nikon, Leica or whoever makes some fine (and expensive) glass targeted at professionals, it does not necessairly mean that their consumer stuff is better than other consumer stuff made by companies that are oriented to the consumer market only.
     
  24. Subject: Why most PROS use Canon than Nikon?​
    If you showed your photojournalist card when purchasing you gear Canon gave you a free t-shirt...
     
  25. Ok... I've been shooting since the 60's when Canon didn't have a clue and Nikon was the King... Canon gave camera's and deals away to the news organizations to get their camera's seen... big white lens... Nikon just makes sure the camera's are good... although most all camera's are made very well and do an excellent job, when the chips are down and you are shooting as a photojournalist you will find it's Canon and Nikon... right now, I think you will find Nikon has the edge...
    As I stated, I've been shooting as a photojournalist since the 60's and my first choice was between a Leica and a Nikon... used both for a while and found the Leica got a bit of rust in it... it's been Nikon ever since... in the 70's I joined Nikon's NPS service and that was the topper... go to a major event and Nikon was there to lend you a camera and clean, fix and polish you camera while you waited... great setup...
    More then just the camera... the person that uses the camera and the team that backs-up the camera... not just a pretty looking thing sitting in your hand...
    Have a great weekend shooting...
    Ed
     
  26. When I was in school in the 70's I did a ride along with a local news reporter / photographer - he used the Nikon F2 - My guess is that that camera is still in use today somewhere. I asked him why Nikon - he said - it's what the paper bought. My guess is that a lot are like this even today.
    Interestingly enough - If you go to major theme parks that do photos or watch school photography companies - the majority of them shoot with black lensed Nikons.
    Dave
     
  27. (tongue-in-cheek... kinda)
    My friend if you aspire to be a professional, once you arrive, whatever equipment that you conduct business with will be the gear of a professional.
    Your camera is the vehicle or tool that carries your vision to the masses, be it Canon, Nikon, Leica, Hasselbald, Mamiya, custom built, or merely the disposable that you pick up off the table. If you find an Holga in your hands, use it to the best of your professional ability to make the necessary image. If you have the $$$, buy whatever camera and lenses that please you the most. If not, use the camera that you have until you become a professional and then buy what you need. If a picture needs to be made and all you have is a pinhole, then use it to make the photograph. Don't wait for "Professional" gear. Nikons work for professionals, Canons work for professionals, and the wide array of other company's gear is put to use by a professional somewhere.
    Ask yourself, "What is the picture before my eyes and what do I have available to best capture it?"
    This answer will include your gear, your knowledge of how to use it, available light, cooperation of the subject, manipulation of the shutter, processing of the result and revealing your success to an audience.
    The smiles or frowns, boos or cheers, the glint in the eyes of the viewers will tell you of your success. Selling the image will confirm that you are a professional. (Which, by-the-way, you will not be worrying about once you are.)
    Get out and enjoy the camera that you have. Buy or save for a new one if you want but don't worry too much about the gear that you will use as a professional photographer. You will find that professionals have and do use them all.
    Best of luck to you in your quest to be a professional photojournalist. Be sure you always have some type of camera available and of course this is all simply my humble opinion/advice. Perhaps a grain of salt will make it more palatable.
    (The only images of Sadaam's hanging came from a cellphone camera which without it no photos would exist...)
    (If we give control of the Hubble telescope's camera to a child, it will not make the child a professional but one day as a professional he may use the Hubble's camera in his work or he could use his Canon... er, Nikon... oh, nevermind.)
     
  28. I believe there are two kinds of children, who when presented with the white cardboard tube from a roll of paper towels, will make their choice accordingly:
    - Those that immediately put the tube to their mouth and go "doot-to-doo!" and...
    - Those that put the tube to one eye, get all squinty-eyed and look off to the far horizon trying to see something.
    The first group grows up to be ordinary, regular, normal people.
    The second group grows up to be professional photographers using Canon's infamous whilte lenses, continuing their tradition of putting the white tube to their eye to this day.
     
  29. I'm not going to get into which is best, but I read somewhere several years ago that Canon's white lenses were of necessity due to heat build-up in their lenses using flourite lens elements.
    Not just for visibility and advertising. The same article stated that the issue of expansion with flourite lens elements was one of the reasons that NASA used only Nikon glass in space.
    I didn't bother to do a search to find that article again, but maybe someone would want to.
    Gary Eaves
     
  30. The majority of photographers are amateurs; not pros. Thus the tenet is buying the name brand of what pros use., Thus in the 1950's an amateur bought an Exakta; since the National Geographic chaps used Exaktas. Then in 50 years ago we got the 1959 Canon Nikon slr cameras. In Pro medical many went to Topcon; since the equiment had the same Exakta mount. Both GM and Ford trucks can haul manure in a pro application; both Nikons and Canons can shoot pro images too. Having amateurs jumping around in the brand names is a good thing; it is the basis of consuming. It also creates a great value situation for items in the used market for pros and amateurs too. That new nano matrix item WILL make you a better image; thus surfing brands and items is good for the economy.
     
  31. My take on it is that Canon took some excellent decisions with the design of the EOS system: an all-electronic camera/lens interface; motors (both for focussing & aperture-size) in the lenses, not the body; and the development of the USM motors. Of course, at the time they took a lot of criticism for cutting FD users off at the knees. But it turned out that an AF SLR that had these features, and which didn't need to worry about backwards compatibility, could be faster and more responsive than one which had to maintain that backwards compatibility. But the decisions were good ones, and they've been reaping the benfits ever since.
    After the initial EOS models (650/620) and a semi-pro model (630/600), Canon launched the EOS 1, and my recollection is that it had a huge impact. By this time (a couple of years or so after the initial EOS launch) Canon had got a full suite of lenses available in EOS mount - all the long fast lenses that pros (especially sports pros) need - and it was this combination of a fast, responsive and tough camera, with the necessary lenses, that caused the pro press world to switch to Canon. That was in the early 90s, and it's taken Nikon this long to really get back on even terms.
    It's a classic example of the company in second place (which is where Canon were all through the 70s & 80s, in pro-useage terms) taking the adventurous & bold decisions; the leading company tends to take decisions that they think will protect their position. In Nikon's case it was that their AF SLRs would retain compatibility with their manual focus lenses.
     
  32. Canon had less folks to piss off by dropping their FD line, Nikon is a more conservative company; one had Nikon S to F adapters to allow Nikon super telephotos for rangefinders to work on the Nikon F./ The giant diameter Canon EOS mount allowed making low cost consumer bodies and lenses for the beginner; ie the Walmart soccer mom crowd; ie with plastic. Most cameras are bought by amateurs; thus targeting the soccer moms worked. Camera makers make their money selling lenses; like an inkjet printer company makes their profits selling ink cartridges. Thus a new bastard EOS mount for pros and amateurs allowed Canon to get folks to buy new lenses; the old FD/FL/R stuff abandoned. Canons light colored white lenses came form Nikons super Mirror lenses that were grey/white; that came from Exaktas mirror lenses of the 1950's; this usage came from Telescope makers going back several hundred years. The cave man knew and reptiles know that white objects are cooler in the sun than dark objects.
     
  33. If the contention that Canon is favored over Nikon is true, which is debatable as you'll note in many responses, it might have something to do with history as well. My first SLR was the Canon AE 1 that was introduced in 1976 with memory serves me. I bought it when it first came out and it was a remarkable camera, the first microprocessor CPU-equipped SLR, and the world's best selling SLR by a wide, wide margin. That comera would certainly have had an impact in the evolution of the Canon/Nikon comptetive wars. PS - When it went digital it was Nikon and the D70.
     
  34. Im not willing to argue which is better, but what I will say is that if you have the D70s, stay with Nikon. You already have a backup body and a lens so why would you switch to Canon? Unless you can see a reason to switch, dont, simply because 51% of pros use something doesnt mean that its better for you.
     
  35. Amen Sky Blue! Two years ago I was a very real rookie welcomed into a press box at a NHL event caring an XTi and my then sole 55/200 Quantaray lens. Little did I know it was to be one of the best weekends of my photographic life! The photographers around me had looked at my work before my arrival and had judged the blogger a professional and treated me as such. What they taught me was it is not the most expensive camera or red ring in your hands that makes you. It is your vision and standards that make a professional. I will always remember these gentlemen for teaching me another important lesson- generosity. Extend you hand, prima donnas have no place in the pit, fight for your space, but always be kind to the artists around you. You never know when it's you that will need the spare battery.
    Oh yes in the pit I'm in the most, five Canons and a sole brave Nikon!
     
  36. Firstly, to pre-qualify my comments below (And I love Roberts opening statement), I have and use both, professionally and for pleasure.
    1. Who was first to introduce pro grade bodies after the move to digital?...Canon.
    2. Who had stolen a bit of a march on their competitor with a bigger range of pro lenses?...Canon.
    3. Who sat on their bums and was too smug about it for too long?...Canon.
    4. Who snuck up on their lazy competitor and gave pros a body (D3) which was vastly better than the competitor?...Nikon
    5. Who is still slow to expand their pro FX lens range and is failing to take advantage of the edge the D3 gave?...Nikon
    6. Who is producing smaller sized pro grade bodies (D300/700) to catch the trend away from monster bodies?...Nikon
    7. Who missed that trend?...Canon (5DMk2 crappy body)
    8. Who is selling more in the top end pro market by a vast margin at the moment? Nikon
    9. Which is the nicer, easier body to use, 1Ds or D3? Nikon D3.
    10. Where is all this going? Your bet is a good as mine, but there is a great editorial in Luminous landscape on all this and the future...read it.
    11. Who is the spider in the woodpile?...Sony
    AND...forget all about megapixel count. The 1Dsxxx and D3 are PJ cameras. Studio guys might use them, but in Nikons case you get enough in a D700. PJs do not buy them for ultimate image quality. You only have to read Reuters Guide to Journalism - Photography rules. They are these, well some of them, and you can achieve them with a 6MP point and shoot:
    - 300dpi max image resolution
    - no sharpening in camera - default settings ok.
    - no image enhancement in camera
    - neutral everything.
    They do the image enhancement (even dust spot removal), in the office.
    So why buy an $8k camera then?...(Well, a lot are now downsizing right now if they have to pay for the gear), response time (Shutter lag), lens range, durability, ease of use, frame rate, nice big bright viewfinder, pro level servicing, widely available rental inventory.
    At the paper I do most of my business with, they have capped the spend on bodies to $5k. What are they buying now? D700s with battery grip. They looked at 5D2s, but the downside of the body negated the image potential (which is not at the top of the list, anyway).
    Why do newspapers like the impact Nikon is having? Its shaken Canon to the foundations...thats all good for the user. They can also dust off all those Nikkors in the cupboard, so long as Nikon goes not screw with lens backwards compatibility (like they are doing with the G lenses), and for which Canon is famous for. Investment protection, folks. That's the photo editors mantra now.
    What does my photo editor want in the future?...In camera WiFi, so that my images go to the office directly as I am taking them. Its not hard to do that...the limiting factor is the public network availability and bandwidth.
    That's my take. My toast is cold.
    (Incoming!)
     
  37. "Why most PROS use Canon than Nikon?"

    Do they?
    Are you sure?
     
  38. Sorry... I can't agree with your Canikon statement. Not all pros shoot Canon (or Nikon). I shoot Olympus. It's all about the glass.

    I've shot Speed Graphic, Topcon, Leica, Canon, Hassy, & Mamiya in the film days. I got out of the business for a number of years, and sold all the Canon EOS1 gear I had last. When I came back to shooting, I bought Olympus.

    You can argue for days about the merits of various systems. The bottom line is that few photographers can exploit their equipment to its fullest anyway. The gear is really pretty insignificant in making a photograph. It's what the person who's driving it can do with it that's important. It's a lot like golf clubs. Despite the advertising hype, buying a new set of clubs will NOT improve your game. Photography is the same.

    If you're comfortable with the gear you've got, and you're not pushing it to it's limit every day, then it's probably fine for you. The difference between a "pro" body and a consumer body is primarily the metal chassis, weather sealing, having a pc sync outlet, and the MTBF of the shutter, not the ability of the body to make photos. Each brand has stuff it does better than the competition, but unless you're in that area where that body excels, it doesn't make much difference.

    I defy you to look at the photos in the galleries on this site and tell me that any specific photo was taken with a specific model or even brand of body. It just can't be done.

    So... buy the brand that "feels" good to you; one that has intuitive controls; and a system of lenses and accessories that you'll be able to live with for years to come. A set of high quality lenses will generally last through at least four or five generations of bodies, so that's where your investment should go.

    In the end, it's really all about the glass.

    Roger
     
  39. more users does not mean better, think campagnolo vs shimano, think mac vs PC.......
     
  40. During the 1990's and early part of this decade, Canon was first to market with key technology and user interface features. Fast focusing USM lenses and really good super telephotos won them the sports and photojournalism markets while Nikon was still playing with slow, screw driven AF lenses. Thanks to USM, Canon was the first to make effective use of Full Time Manual focusing with AF activation off the shutter button. (I can't imagine shooting action with anything other than a sonic focusing lens with FTM.) I think they were also first with a rear control dial. If not first to feature it, they certainly had it integrated into their line up very quickly. They had good bodies and feature sets for the money, and quickly grew the EOS lens library to impressive standards.
    When digital came they were on top for a while. They weren't the first with full frame, but they beat Nikon to market by years, and were the only successful early producers of full frame sensors. They had the best high ISO and best feature sets for the money across the board. They beat Nikon multiple times when it came to introducing bodies at key price/performance points (10D, Rebel, 1D series multiple times, 5D). The D70 was the first Nikon that was even remotely competitive for its price point IMHO. It was years before Nikon was truly competitive across the line.
    Nikon has made great strides in closing the gap. They've introduced full frame bodies, their sensors are now on par with Canon's, and they are competitive at almost all price points. They don't yet have an answer for the 5D mkII. Then again I don't think Canon has a good answer for the D700. The next 1D really needs to be full frame and lower in cost for sports shooters. Nikon has also introduced some of the key glass they were missing for the coveted sports and photojournalism markets. Right now Canon and Nikon are pretty evenly matched. But you have a lot of professional shooters today who started buying equipment when Canon had the edge.
    Canon still has a small edge in their lens library. Their primes are more modern (i.e. more USM primes), they have a few more lenses with IS, and their f/4L lenses offer pro quality glass to photographers on a budget. They still offer exotic glass that Nikon has not matched such as their T/S lenses and 1-5x macro. Generally their prices are a little lower. But these are admittedly small differences. With the exception of Canon's new T/S lenses, there's really nothing you might want to do photographically that you can't do with the Nikon lens system. (And if you can afford Canon's T/S lenses, you can probably afford a Canon body just for them yet still keep a Nikon setup for everything else.)
    Ultimately it comes down to the photographer, not the equipment. That will always be true. If you have good glass, stick with Nikon. If you don't, there's not much to lose by switching, but not a whole lot to gain either. It really comes down to how the bodies feel in your hands, and the lenses you want to buy. Small differences will mean one photographer is best served by Nikon, the other by Canon. You really can't go wrong with either.
     
  41. this question is based on a false presumption.
     
  42. Discussions Canon vs. Nikon (and film vs. digital) are often called "religious wars" on Russian photographic forums because 1) the preference for either is based on personal beliefs and preferences, pun intended 2) they often wind up in many pages of mutual abuse. It is not happening here, which is a good commentary on photo.net.
    In Russia, Canon is cheaper. But I use Nikon just because I happened to be using Nikon.
     
  43. It's a Saturday night brawl. I'm a Canon shooter but I would be just as happy shooting their (Nikon) CMOS bodies. Their CCD stuff can be used better as paper weight. v/r Raz
     
  44. That's funny, I thought most pros used the Minox lineup for it's extreme portability and phenomenal image quality.
    (yes, that's a joke)
     
  45. Not all CMOS sensors in Nikon bodies are full frame sensors.
     
  46. Keith, Minox indeed . Now that's just plain silly. Minox doesn't offer an interchangable lens lineup. You know Pentax Auto-110 is the choice of pros. As I said before, it's all about the glass! :)
     
  47. Troll. If not, might as well be.
     
  48. many pros use canon because of there switch to a better lens mount when jumping to auto focus. nikon made the decision to adapt the outdated F mount and has been playing catch up ever since. . . . this coming from a nikon shooter / collector
     
  49. Roger, my only complaint with the pentax is that it doesn't support the M mount. Just imagine what you could do with an M lens on 110 film. I'll take a 2 minute silent pause to imagine...
     
  50. Pros use Nikon and Canon because Nikon and Canon are the only two companies who successfully made it through the AF Wars and early Digital Wars who make professional cameras. It's like asking why race car drivers drive certain cars... or why business professionals buy certain computers. It's because those companies make the products and they can afford them and need them, so they buy them.
     
  51. 1: Why does it matter? Are you conducting a survey or selecting a camera based on what pro's use? If you are selecting a camera for your own use, buy the camera that fits your needs.
    2: Were did you come up with this observation? I see more Nikons in the hands of professionals than Canons. Your observation may be true of young photographers. But the guys that I see, that have been shooting for decades are married to their Nikons because every lens they own fits every camera that they own.
    I would suspect that if you conducted a survey among the highest paid proffessionals, Nikon users would far outnumber the Canon users. Canon is a good camera, and dollar for feature they are a good value. But to say that Canon and Nikon make the best lenses is a bit of a stretch. Canon and Nikon have a very wide selection of really good lenses. So if you are looking for good lensmakers that fill the most needs Canon and Nikon are obvious choices. So if you prefer a Canon or Nikon for quality and selection you are making a good choice. But to say that they make the best lenses, that is not an argument that you are going to win.
     
  52. Actually, back in the film days Nikon ruled the roost, and the change over by many photographers from Nikon to Canon began then. I myself began with Nikon, switched over to Canon, and just recently returned to Nikon. I believe that a lot of it may have had to do with Canon's lenses being next to Zeiss, about the best lenses there are. I've seen much hard data to back up that claim by the way, but its only generally true, not true in the case of every lens. To me, now that Nikon has caught up to Canon on the digital front they will most likely be selling as well among Pros as Canon, but because of the investment lenses represent it may take a while, or not.
     
  53. Not anymore. Nikon have overtaken Canon in sales, pro's included. If you check the specs of all series for Nikon and Canon you will notice that Nikon is offering a much better diversity for selection. For me Nikon's are superior now in every way. There focusing is far better, shutter speed is faster on most models, lenses are better quality. Build quality is far superior and basically most things that make up the camera and picture quality is superior on the Nikon. You see Nikon have been more patient than Canon, since Canon have quickly come out of recent with camera's that are not heading in the right direction. The mkD 5II for example is slow and has poor focusing. The 50D has trouble with noise control and again focussing not so good. 1000D is basically a non-camera for this day and age. In contrast Nikon D300, D700, D3 and D3x (can buy cheaper now than the 1Ds mk III !) are all outstanding camera's for people's different needs. They really do research what people want rather than trying to make quick cash like Canon. All these Nikon camera's have excellent focusing, fast shutter speeds and superior quality. You will be making a huge mistake changing to Canon. Do the research yourself and you will soon realise. Good hunting :eek:)
     
  54. I wonder how much Nikon paid Michael for his post...
     
  55. 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?
     
  56. When the EOS 1 was introduced Canon gave outfits to high profile photographers, such as sports photographers covering events where they would be seen on television. They were able to buy these after a while at a fantastic discount. Many photographers chose to do so because, at the time, the system was ahead of what Nikon had to offer. The new mount was designed to accomodate future development and, indeed, in the early days not all the contacts were used. This gave them a head start with auto focus etc. also the larger opening in the body allowed for better, and cheaper, fast lens designs. Canon made a great stride forward in terms of professional use and it has taken a while for Nikon to catch up again. There is no doubt though that they have. Nikon chose to go the route of staying faithfull to their lens mount. This may have been a mistake in some ways but with the reduction in size of electronics and advances in optical design they are now able to compete with Canon. None of this means that one system is better than the other, both have their devotees and both are capable of taking equally good photos. What matters is always, are you happy with the camera in your hand. If you are you will get most pleasure and use from your system. The debate about which system is best is meaningless, it is only what is best for you that matters and one mans meat, as they say, is another mans poison. If you are contemplating a new purchase, go try the options, maybe by renting, and then you will be able to decide what is to be your choice. I used to work for Nikon, I now shoot Canon because I wanted to try something different, both take great shots!
     
  57. That was a pretty immature comment about Michael, Daniel.
    There have been a couple of snipes at the F Mount. But at least its investment protection. Apart from the generic lens manufacturers like Tamron, Sigma and Tokina, its also interesting to note that both Zeiss and now Voigtlander are making versions of their lovely manual lenses in F mount too. And you can also buy an M mount to F mount adapter. I don't see them choosing the Canon mount. That says something.
    All eyes are on Canon now to see what they do for the 1D range replacement. If they screw it up then it's very serious as they are making losses right now which will make them very conservative with development funds and also risk averse. If Nikon do release the MX series soon in medium format digital then it could just be a mortal blow to Canon's top end.
     
  58. Stephen,
    That was a pretty immature comment about Michael, Daniel.
    His post was the immature post of a fanboy, filled with ignorance and exaggeration. Pure drivel from someone who has obviously not used both and therefore shouldn't be talking. It's his kind of brand worship which turns questions from new users into flame wars that fail to help anyone.
     
  59. Stephen, there won't be any mortal blows inflicted by either Nikon,or Canon on the other you can be fairly certain of that.
     
  60. Forty years ears ago I shot film with a Leica 3G. My father useed a Liece 3M, an Alpa and a Nikon FM2 and a Mamiya medium format for wedding and insurance as well as personal photography. All were great cameras with great lenses. When I went digital, upgrading from an ancient Canon AE-1, I got a Nikon D100 and was delighted with it. On Feb. 23rd I bought a D700 and am ecstatic. The control over the in-camera options for photographs is amazing, and the lack of digital noise at high ISO is phenomenal. It is solid , but not overwhelming (I'm only 5'1" and have small hands). Both Canon and Nikon make top of the line products; you can buy more expensive - a Leica digital is a thing of beauty and about $8K - then come the lenses. Personally I would look at a very high end camera like the Leica as a "fine arts" camera, not something I would take on Safari and bang around in the rough and tumble rush of sports and journalistic shooting. They are compact, solid and wonderful to the touch. I'd love one, but...I haven't won the sweepstakes yet. (Anyone want to buy and carry a spare digital Leica body on the job?) Compared to the Leica class, Nikons and Canons are almost affordable throw-aways. Nikon and Canon lenses are among the best, and within the line-up, some lenses are much better than others. I would take stock of your personal pocket-book, go out and try - event rent a new D700 or Canon equivalent and see which one fits your personal preferences.... and remember that in a few years technology will change and you'll be getting a new body, so unless you want to duplicate lens cost, it would be a very good thing to make the best informed decision you can and keep those lenses. One thing about Nikon is that when they build their lenses, they make them forward-compatible. They know what features are planned and make the lenses "ahead of their time."
    I am so glad to see that this thread did not degenerate into a flame-out like the PC versus Mac one did a few weeks ago.
     
  61. I think there are fanboys/girls in both camps, I've in the past been accused of being a Canon fanboy. Both systems are fine and Nikon leads in marketing. I've used Nikons, while they have done a good job recently, last couple yrs. There are some things untouchable from Canon for me the combination of a 1dmk3 and a 300mm f2.8LIS is pure magic. Thanks everyone good comments so far was a good read.
     
  62. I use Nikon and I am very happy with my gear. However, I am not a pro.
    I often read that Canon are ahead in lenses and that Nikon needs to ´close gaps´ in their line. What´s meant by that?
     
  63. Maybe the real deal is that for Pros the camera is just a tool. I know mine are. I still sometimes use a D2Hs. Horrors! Sometimes a D3. Sometimes I shoot film.
    Amateur golfers share something in common with amateur photographers. (SOME NOT ALL) That is they try to buy a game. If I can only get the newest driver i'll hit them longer straighter and softer than ever before. If only I had 934 Megapixels I could make pictures just like Olsen.
    Perhaps others have experienced this but I am frequently asked what digital camera to buy. My stock answer is "if you have lenses already buy the one that fits them". If not either is fine. Might I also suggest that some if not most beginners would have more fun if they spent less on equipment and more on seminars and events to learn and practice thier new hobby.
    It sort'a goes like this: A new D 40 Kit costs about 600 bucks. Add a 70-300 vr and you are at about $1K. You have 18-55, 55 - 200 and 70 - 300 and some fairly good glass that will work for 90% of occasions. A D3 would run $5k, the same lens range in 2.8 glass and you would be at about $12K. Go for the cheaper camera and you can take a seminar in wildlife photography and fly to Nirobi for a once in a lifetime safari. As soon as you get back you can take another workshop in travel photography and spend a couple weeks in Europe. You may not win any style points for gear but you will have pictures and experiences for a lifetime, that most of us with our fancy gear would envy.
    I like Nikons better than Canon. Not because they are better but because I have used Nikon since 1973 and I am comfortable with it. I even use some of the old lenses I bought then. Why change? My customers/readers will not see one bit of difference.
    For the OP. I think your premise is bad. I see about equal numbers where I am. When photojournalists speak to one-another it is not a Canon vsrs Nikon flame game. Many use what their newspaper or magazine issues. Two of our local papers issue Canon so thier PJs are Canonites. One up north issues Nikon. Think about this. Your D70 does something neither of the 50D or 40D will do. It syncs flash at 1/500 sec. This could be a big deal on occasion and a real convenience sometimes.
    When you see the wonderful pictures posted on this forum by pros and amateurs alike you can be sure that 99% of the time it is talent, training and hard work that made them. Not a new gizmo.
     
  64. just remember to keep your camera recepit to show everyone how creative you are.
     
  65. Since I used Olympus(film) in my studios I wanted to get Olympus when digital came about. But due to a completely new camera I didn't want to wait so I bought Nikon. It's alright but I'm going to go Olympus in the near future. They have great glass and feel so good in my hands. I don't know why Olympus is not accepted more than it is.
     
  66. Given that any statement presented as fact is a setup for substantiation or defense, I will only respond with the observation that the subject is the most critical component in any image, followed by the photographer. The equipment is only a tool.
     
  67. Couple of years ago when Canon was really storming the market with top-of-class bodies in every class (including the full frame 1Ds), I was doing nightshots on basic 6x6 BW film when a pro crossed my path with the Canon 24 TS lens a a rather professional looking body. We had some smalltalk, I asked what the body was and he looked at the front saying something like "well he doesn't really know a new camera..." and then read what it says on the front. Bottom line: when you got a really good camera that does the job, details like the make and model are irrelevant.
    Incidentally, I shoot mostly Nikon, just because I think Nikon's ergonomics are better. Digital is evolving so rapidly that I never really think about switching, today Nikon might have the best image quality out there, tomorrow Canon, but what's important is that the quality is high enough. A real pro PJ once told that the Nikon D1 delivered perfectly sufficient quality for newspaper work.
     
  68. Everyone is entitled to their opinion Daniel. And how on earth could you possibly know i have not used both systems as you dont know me from Adam? Anyway i've never said that Canon were bad camera's so you have no reason to be upset and then bad mouth as unfortunately the minority do on here but i explained in my own rightful opinion whether people agree or disagree than Nikon produce a better all round system at present. Now hopefully you will read this with a logical stress free mind. :eek:)
     
  69. It's pretty simple: Nikon lost its leadership in the pro market because they were several years behind Canon in introducing a useful autofocus. That was particularly crucial for sports shooters, but photojournalists of all kinds found Canon's AF useful, and Nikon's sadly lacking, for most of the 1990's.
    Other than that, it hasn't mattered much what system you use. Canon has been ahead in several other areas, like image stabilization and full-frame sensors, whereas Nikon has held a bit of a lead in metering and flash systems. But the differences are small, and either system will work fine.
    If Canon is still ahead (and I don''t know if they are) it's largely a legacy of Nikon's sloth with respect to AF in the 1990's, and a relatively brief and more recent period where Canon had clearly better digital bodies.
     
  70. Oh, and I agree with Daniel's "fanboy" characterization of Michael's post. When you read something like that, it's very hard to take the poster seriously (as well you should not).
     
  71. I agree with most of the inputs here regarding the historical reasons for it. Canon took several (more or less risky) decissions to try to get some of Nikon's market share and they were successful. First it was USM, then IS, then the digtal bodies, and the latest was full frame. End of story. Now Nikon has striked back and seems to be back in an F5-like era: nowadays (2009) they make better bodies, but Canon still seems to maintain a slightly better offering in terms of lenses.
    Don't buy "reasonings" like: Canon gives photographers equipment for free, and a car, and a beach house for shooting Canon. Or Canon is evil, and at Nikon they are angels. Or Canon evolves and Nikon just stays still. And the like. They are big companies (Canon is bigger) and they behave the same way, for the good and the bad. I don't understand this fan club for either one of the brands.
    I still shoot with a T90/AE-1 (FD system) and a Mamiyaflex. I don't miss digital nor autofocus and some other things. I am very satisfied with my equipment and it works for me pretty well. If you are satisfied with your D70s (a hell of a camera), I don't see the reason to "move up". But well, I am the kind of guy that once he finds what works for him, sticks to it. I prefer to evolve the art (if what I shoot can be called art :) ) than the equipment.
     
  72. Michael Moore,
    And how on earth could you possibly know i have not used both systems as you dont know me from Adam?
    Because nobody who has actually used Canon equipment would be so ignorant about it.
    Anyway i've never said that Canon were bad camera's
    You just lied about their capabilities and build quality and made it sound as if Canon cameras were 2nd rate junk that could not produce the same images as Nikon. Want me to go through it point by point?
    shutter speed is faster on most models,
    All the models you talked about from Nikon and Canon (D300, D700, D3 and D3x; 5D II and 50D) have the same top shutter speed: 1/8000. So does the Canon 40D. What about lower end? From the Nikon D90 down the top shutter is 1/4000, just like the Canon Rebels. There is no difference between Canon / Nikon in terms of shutter speed for a given price point.
    Perhaps you ment shooting speed? If you look across the line at various price points the Canon and Nikon bodies are very evenly matched. Sometimes the Canon is a bit faster (i.e. 40D 6 fps / D200 5 fps) sometimes the Nikon, but the difference is never more than 0.5-1 fps for a price point, which is simply inconsequential.
    lenses are better quality.
    This is absolute nonsense. Both companies make great, good, and a few not so good lenses. But if you're buying their primes or pro zooms you're generally getting great glass. (Except with Canon primes you're more likely to get USM with FTM, but any way...)
    Canon is not behind or 2nd place in any way on lens quality. Given that they have maintained the lead in the introduction of exotic glass for over a decade now, Canon is arguably the most technically advanced lens designer in the world. Their recently introduced T/S lenses, for example, speak volumes about their capabilities when it comes to lens design and manufacturing.
    Nikon also makes top notch glass. But for the photographer on a budget Canon simply has more options.
    Build quality is far superior
    More absolute nonsense. I'm sure you get this from drooling over forum debates about 5D II's in Antarctica. Shall we instead discuss frozen D3's at NFL games? http://alittlenewsphoto.com/?p=311
    basically most things that make up the camera and picture quality is superior on the Nikon
    Pure fanboy drivel. The same artist shooting both will produce images that look identical. That's how similar the sensors are and how important the photographer is. Canon camera quality is top notch. I'm not going to say it's better than Nikon's because I have time shooting Nikon equipment and they also make very high quality cameras. They are pretty evenly matched here.
    The mkD 5II for example is slow and has poor focusing. The 50D has trouble with noise control and again focussing not so good.
    The focusing on both of these bodies is excellent. Maybe this will clear you up about the 50D: http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fbrutusbloggar.blogg.se%2F2008%2Faugust%2Ffalttest-av-canon-eos-50d.html
    Nikon has introduced 51 point AF at lower price points than Canon has their 45 point AF. Kudos to Nikon. But additional points does not necessarily mean faster or more accurate acquisition and tracking. They often mean problems as the camera tries to sort out what's what and gets confused by other elements in the frame. Additional points are useful for some specific shooting situations. But most of the time you will actually get superior AF performance with a single point or a small cluster of points selected. That's why both Nikon and Canon provide modes which employ fewer points on their 51/45 point AF modules. Most of the time the number of points is not important, the acquisition and tracking speed of any single given point is key, and Canon's mid range bodies are quite competitive here.
    Lenses play a huge part in this. It has taken Nikon years to finally start to fill out their lens line up with AF-S lenses. Canon still has more USM options, which means more faster focusing lenses.
    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". Granted it's not the 6-10 fps of faster bodies, but the 5D series was always about image quality. The 5D II offers the high ISO of the D3 and the resolution of the D3x in one package cheaper than either. It is a landscape / portrait / product / studio / wedding photographer's dream camera. That's why it's flying off shelves. It's not a sports or action photographer's dream camera, nor was it intended to be.
    Oh yes, the 50D produces cleaner prints than the D300 at high ISO. It's a small difference, really not much to worry about either way, but it's there. So much for your theory about noise control.
    1000D is basically a non-camera for this day and age.
    Yet it has a superior feature set to the D40 and D40x. Any of the three can be used to produce fantastic images. Any of the three quite frankly have superior features to "professional" film bodies of just 15 years ago.
    They really do research what people want rather than trying to make quick cash like Canon.
    Compare the price of a D3x and a 5D II and say that with a straight face. Talking about quick cash, why are Nikon lenses more expensive even in comparisons where they have less features? (Example: compare Nikon's 300 f/4 with NO VR versus Canon's 300 f/4L WITH IS.) Speaking of what people want, why won't Nikon make lower cost f/4 versions of popular professional f/2.8 zooms?
    Like I said, there are small differences between the brands which mean one photographer might like one, and another the other. No big deal pointing those differences out. Handle their bodies, look at their lenses, and choose what works for you.
    But your post was silly Nikon worship. If you need something to worship, find a religion, not a corporation.
     
  73. Has anyone pointed out that the correct answer to this type of question is always- the knowledge, expertise, taste, creativity, hard work, inspiration, etc. of the photographer are far more important than which line of professional camera equipment is chosen?
    The best photographers today, as in the old film days, can get much better results with amateur cameras than a fledgling will get by agonizing over which equipment to buy.
     
  74. I shot canon. I started out with a 30D and now using a 5d mark II. I went with it for one main reason I wanted the full size sensor to get all I can out of my L lens. I can say I shot side by side with Nikon and Canon shooters and most of the time you will find they are loyal to that brand because they own glass and do not want to spend the money needed to replace it.
     
  75. jbm

    jbm

    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?
    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.
    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.
     
  76. 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.
    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.
    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.
    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.
     
  77. Why does it matter? A picture is a picture. Nikon and Canon both make good cameras.
     
  78. 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.
    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.
    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.
    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.
    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.
    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.
    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.
     
  79. Many people say Nikon is good, but why do I see most of the Pro photojournalist use Canon more than Nikon?
    Because a) time changes and b) people's taste change as well. Let's see:
    1930s - 1950s : the pro tools were Rolleiflex TLR and the tiny Leica 35mm
    1960s - 1970s : dominated by 35mm cameras especially Nikon F something and Pentax Spotmatic
    1980s - 1990s : as far as the eyes can see there were only Nikon F3 and Canon F1
    digital era : Canon and Nikon, with some distant Pentax, Olympus, Leica, Sony, Panasonic etc.

    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.
     
  80. 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...
     
  81. Everyone knows that Canon cameras and lenses are better than Nikon. Where have you been living?
     
  82. May be the clients ask for those ;)
     
  83. Everyone knows that Canon cameras and lenses are better than Nikon. Where have you been living?
    In the real world :)
     
  84. In the real world :)
    Ha!
     
  85. Bob Cossar [​IMG][​IMG], Mar 06, 2009; 04:44 p.m.
    (SNIP) The truth is this: ALL professional photographers shoot with.....wait for it...

    __________________________________________
    And whole heaps of us only shoot/shot; wait for it: what the company supplies.
    For my early years as a PJ, (1966) that more often than not meant... Nikon.
    Canon (EOS) broke out of the pack with their full court press once their "T90" and later EOS "1" body SLRs came into being.
     
  86. 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. :eek:)
     
  87. 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.
     
  88. 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.
     
  89. 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.
     
  90. 青菜萝卜各有所好 哈哈
     
  91. Daniel Lee Taylor to Michael Moore:
    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".
    Granted it's not the 6-10 fps of faster bodies, but the 5D series was always about image quality.
    __________________________________
    Michael, I still own my 1994 architecture Canon EOS A2E film SLR, a “lowly” “semi-pro” body that still cranks out film frames @ 5fps-unboosted.
    How many ) modern (post 2002) DSLRs (any) can do 5fps-unboosted?
    Did you forget about the EOS 1HV film SLR @ 10fps?
    Or the Canon F1 (motorized) @ 10fps?
    As noted, “fast” SLRs was the domain of Canon even back in film SLR days
     
  92. My friend and I purchased our DSLRs the very same time. He opted for the Nikon D90 and I for the Canon 50D.
    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.
    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.
    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).
    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.
     
  93. Talk about reviving a dead thread.
    @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.
     
  94. 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.
     
  95. "Mark Loader , Mar 08, 2009; 08:11 a.m.
    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?"
    ---> is that true of the nIkon CMOS cameras as well? (D90 and up)
    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.
     
  96. 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
     
  97. 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...
     
  98. Sorry for bringing up old thread, just sharing here in Indonesia (so bear with my English :) )
    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.
    So tried to get some old photography magazine from film era around 80's & 90's.
    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.
    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).
    Funny thing is (was) though, throughout many magazines, I've never seen any single Nikon SLR ads. Dunno whether overconfident or no budget.
    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.)
    Zeiss Otus can be taken as an example; quite industrial standards, being sold and targeted for consumer/professionals.
    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".

    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.
    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).
    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.
    5D's body about 600US$ where similar 12MP Nikon D700 still around 1200US$ here.
    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 ).
    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).
     
  99. 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.
    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
    I still feel - head to head- as a beginner, Canon 1200D was much easier to use the the Nikon D3300.
     

Share This Page