Why most PROS use Canon than Nikon?

<p>Hi<br>

As photojournalism interested would like to ask question?<br>

As I know both Nikon and Canon camera and lences are best of all.<br>

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.<br>

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?<br>

Thanks for your responses.</p>

 

<p>Incoming! Hit the deck!!!<br /> 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...</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>I think the general consensus is that:</p>

<p>1) They don't.<br>

2) Sport photojournalists probably do use Canon over Nikon due to bettery A/F speed.<br>

3) Herd mentallity exists with photographers just as much as other places.<br>

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.</p>

<p>A funny thing, along these lines...<br>

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.<br>

So, i do believe this trend, of more Canon than Nikon at sporting events, is changing. </p>

<p>Where to start...?</p>

<p><strong>"As I know both Nikon and Canon camera and lences are best of all.".....</strong> Not true<strong>. </strong> You need to reconsider "what you know"</p>

<p>The truth is this: <strong> ALL</strong> professional photographers shoot with.....wait for it................."Whatever suits their NEEDS"<br>

Take the blinkers off and have a look at the real world.....</p>

<p>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.<br>

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.<br>

They also produce some awesome photographs and videos. A good example is Art Wolfe and his videos.<br>

I can't recall if I've ever seen any such evenys sponsored by Nikon.</p>

<p>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. </p>

<p>Some would say that Leica is the best camera in the world.<br>

But just like Bob said, "The truth is this: <strong>ALL</strong> professional photographers shoot with.....wait for it................."Whatever suits their NEEDS""<br>

And with the exception of how much money I have available, that's exactly what I do.</p>

<p>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.<br>

But I hope those of you who can afford the pro equipment continue to use it well.<br>

Larry</p>

<blockquote>

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

</blockquote>

<p>They probably don't jump from brand to brand at every upgrade like photo forum amateurs do?</p>

<p>Just kidding</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>One word - Momentum.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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...</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Also the "big white" lenses and the red bands -- higher visibility.</p>

<p>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. <br>

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.</p>

<p><strong>Perception is the reality. :)</strong><br /> 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.<br /> Two reasons come too mind.<br /> (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.<br /> (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.<br /> 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.</p>

<p>I have shot both systems for newspapers. Prefer Nikon for but that is my disclaimer. I do use Canon video systems.</p>

<p>Mike Earussi<br /> <em>"...for many years Canon's dslrs were much better than Nikon's..."</em></p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Leica make the best lenses in the world.<br>

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.</p>

<p>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 !</p>

<p>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.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>As I know both Nikon and Canon camera and lences are best of all.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /> 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 <em>known</em> names to consumers but not necessarily the best performers.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Subject: Why most PROS use Canon than Nikon?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>If you showed your photojournalist card when purchasing you gear Canon gave you a free t-shirt...</p>

<p>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...<br>

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...<br>

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...<br>

Have a great weekend shooting...<br>

Ed</p>