Canon vs Nikon?

[tom22]

I recently bought a Canon EOS-3 and had done quite a bit of research

on different cameras before making my final decision. I had spoke to

a lot of knowledgeable people (including a professor of photography

at the local university) about which camera to choose. The reponse

was that the two top brands are Canon and Nikon and that there

really was not a difference between the two. So I bought my Canon

and have been very pleased with it. Recently I had picked up a

National Geographic guide to photography because I had always

respected the photography they displayed. The book goes thru a list

of many professional photographers working for NG and gets their

opinons on photgraphy. Without exception every photographer that

mentions a camera uses a Nikon. My question is this, is the Nikon

used more often among professional photographers or else does

National Geographic have a deal with Nikon. I am VERY happy with my

Canon and am just curious. Thanks.

[digitmstr]

I think Nikon was much more effective at marketing among pros (and GOV agencies) in the 70s, and even earlier. It took Canon a bit longer to gain in the pro market. Not to mention the GOV contracts...

 

After introducing he EOS 1 things changed drastically and now many PJs, fashion and sports photogs use Canon. However, not every one is willing to ditch a fortune collected in glass and equipment very easily.

 

Unless PROs have a *specific* reason to switch brand they are not likely to do it.

[SCL]

It's a toss up, with certain specific needs being met by one or the other manufacturers. The conference I recently returned from, although focussed on Nikon products, had about 50% professional attendees using Canon gear. Go figure.

[andy_van_eynde]

Look at the camera's used for taking pictures at a sports event (racing, tennis,....)and you will see that almost 95% of them will be using those creamy white L-lenses from Canon.

 

If I'm not mistaken I read somewhere that Canon is better in making Tele lenses and Nikon is generally better for the wide end.

[zacker]

I agree with Andy. I have seen pics in different sporting mags of sports games and almost all you can see on the sidelines are big white canon "L" series lenses. Unless these guys are using an adapter from canon to Nikon, id say Canon is coming up very fast!

I love canons, always have, as far as renting a business copier from them, id rather give em a swift kick in the crotch....but thats a tale for another time...lol

-zacker-

[kemmerichphoto]

I would think that if you are shooting in the middle of a little country that NG usually visits I would think an EOS 1 would generate more attention the say a FM3a thats just my guess. The reality is the camera doesent make the picture we do. If you also read closer most of those NG guys still use film.

[corey_gardner1]

Both systems are very good. Alot of Nat'l Geographic photographers have simply used Nikon for years and never felt any reason to switch, not because Nikon is inherently better than Canon. They would have to have a good reason to dump all their gear and switch. Reasons to choose one over the other is that one system may have certain lenses or capabilities that suit your photography better than the other. Another would be personal preferences but beyond that, it doesn't matter.

[godefroy]

Every month in NG mag, they present photographers who took shoots for the current issue. With time, it seems that more and more NG photographers use Canon equipment (even in Africa, I remember a woman with a Canon DSLR going there for NG).

 

It's true that pictures in NG mag are taken from parts of the world where charging batteries can't be done easily (except with the jeep batteries or solar panels...) and Nikon still makes cameras without batteries...

 

Anyway, it's also true that the camera doesn't take the picture...

 

Happy shooting :-)

[fourfa]

Nikon's continued support for new mechanical camera and manual focus lenses has something to do with it. You can still buy brand-new MF lenses, some of Nikon's best classics now with modern coatings, and a FM3a camera that works without a battery. Someone who started out in the 70s or 80s with Nikon (and has a staff and lab to handle the film) hasn't had any reason to change.

[jim_j2]

Not that it makes any difference, but have you noticed that National Geographic Magazine usually has a Canon advertisement or two within the first 10 pages, and then again in the last few pages!

[delwyn_ching]

It's Nikon had better marketing though I read somewhere some of the greats now do marketing for Canon. I know of several photojournalists who shot for USA Today and some NGS stuff that switched from Nikon to Canon because Nikon screwed them with a bad deal, though they wouldn't say what it was.

 

It's the competetion between the 2 companies that makes it good for us in terms of new and better products.

[ofey_kalakar]

May depend on the type of peridical. NG is a monthly so getting the pictures to them ASAP

is not as necessary as a newspaper. So choosing slides to scan with a drum scanner for NG

serves their QC. For a daily like USA today the QC is not a high priority for their print

media therefore expiditing digital images from PJ's around the world is much more in tune

with their mode of doing bussiness. Again for NG the types of pictures that are recorded

by their photographers have a much longer shelf life than a timely news article in a daily.

So if the standard for NG is one that requires film, then Nikon with it;s outstanding

selection of durable mechanical automatice film bodies and extensive lens selections

make it a reliable choice in the field. For sports events that require a lower QC such as

photos from a hockey game or yesterdays BBall game then using a digital Canon or Nikon

is a no brainer.

[daniel_ob]

Just recently I got two Nikon F6. It is amusing camera. But lenses are not in a parr with camera. I got Nikkor autofocus 1.4/85 and it is OK at all.But for second camera I tryed some lenses )manual 2.8/55 macro, and manual 2.5/105) and I can say I do not have lens for my second F6. i do not know much about Canon lenses but Nikon definitely has a problem with lenses. Out of focus object are simple terible. As for canon I think only EOS 1v could fit my bag with Leicas, but I personaly do not like its design. Someone other like Canion EOS 1v so he get Canon. I think also there is no much difference between Canon and Nikon lenses, but Nikon has its own lens manufacturing. Neather of them has lens quality in first plane as Zeiss and Leica, so both are just to get job done. In my opinion.

[andrew robertson]

I'm not sure what Daniel is implying, but Canon manufactures all its own lenses whereas

Nikon contracts out some of the work. Notably, Nikon was unable to design a 14 f/2.8 and

so repackages the Tamron product. There are others as well.

[KenPapai]

It is my opinion and best guess that the majority of NG photographers are close to 100% digital in their workflow.

(check out the DEC. 2005 issue of "Digital Photo Pro" magazine for Gerd's perspective about Canon DSLRs and his pro work with NG)<p>

I would bet that the "National Geographic guide to photography" is an old publication (more than 5 years old).

[scorch]

I have used both companies (although only owned Canon) and I like the Canons much better. As far as how many pros use each I'm not sure. I believe Canon dominates the sports realm of photography, but as far as other areas, I'm not sure.

[ky2]

Tom, you got your 3, you used it, you're pleased with it. Why do you care about Nikon?

[KenPapai]

Here you go:<p>

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0792274989/103-7403295-3534242?v=glance&n=283155">National Geographic Photography Field Guide</a> book, published way back in 1999. It is irrelevant in 2006 as far NG photogs go, including "Nikon vs. Canon", and "Digital vs. Film." It's an historic relic of the times but is an excellent guide in learning about photography: "How-to tips from ten of National Geographic's top photographers."

[jonglass]

My impression has always been that Canon seems to be preferred amongst sports shooters, while Nikon has the press corp shooting news. It also seems that NG has a preponderance of Nikon shooters, despite the fact that Canon is a big sponsor of theirs.

 

Another impression--right or wrong--Canon has really good technology, and people who upgrade constantly, to keep at the crusp like Canon, while People who have a deep investment in Nikon lenses appreciate the fact they can use their older glass with newer cameras--even if they have to pay to have the lenses upgraded to work--at least they can do so.

 

Now that I've said the above, I wonder what others think?

 

-Jon

[mcgarity]

In the last 30 years I have owned a couple of Nikons but my primary system has always been Canon. At one point I had over 25 different pieces of FD glass. The quality of FD optics was and is top notch but there is no practical way to use most of them on a digital camera. Manual focus Nikkor lenses on the other hand can be ported over. That backwards compatibility is an advantage which preserves a major investment. If could go back 30 years I would have invested strickly in the Nikon system and I wouldn't be shooting Canon today.

[umd]

<i>Notably, Nikon was unable to design a 14 f/2.8 and so repackages the Tamron product.</i><br><br>

 

BS.

[fourfa]

the Tamron 14mm and Nikon 14mm lenses are physically quite different. Perhaps you're thinking of the 35-70 3.5-4.5 that's a kit with the FM10, both are made by Cosina. note that this isn't really a classic canon vs nikon flame thread, so no reason to take it there.

[delwyn_ching]

I've been to the NGS site and they have an update version of this field guide which is date 2003. Still a little behind as technology and cameras are being revised continuiously.

[roger_s]

I happened to wander into the Canon forum to see what you guys were saying about the new Nikon D200.

 

I must say, this present post sounds like members of one religion agreeing that theirs is better than the other, without taking into account any of the arguments of other religion.

 

I think the religious analogy, regarding Canon vs Nikon, is appropriate :-)

 

I am a Nikon user since 1978, so here are one Nikon user's views on the Canon vs Nikon debate:

 

1 - Nikon DSLRs have better ergonomics than Canon. This is a widely-held view by Nikon users. (Search the forums). The accessibility of features on Nikon DSLRs is better than Canon.

 

2 - There is no practical difference in quality between Canon and Nikon lenses, when one compares the overall range of lenses. Any Canon user that suggests Canon has better lenses is ... well, a Canon user, or ignorant.

 

3 - Canon is definitely faster at bringing out the latest technology. Nikon always is 2nd to the market but always refines it brilliantly. Canon then trumps Nikon again within a few months, and the cycle continues.

 

4 - I personally like the appearance and outer design of Nikon lenses. Canon lenses look plasticy, and look awful.

 

5 - Canon has greater market share than Nikon, and we suspect it is due to better marketing. Canon has a marketing mentality, whereas Nikon has an engineering mindset, focused on the product, rather than marketing.

 

6 - Nikon's legacy among professionals dates back to the Nikon F, whereas Canon did not have a serious professional contender until their Canon F1. Ever since then, Canon has grown its market share to the extent I suspect it has the edge in the professional world overall.

 

7 - Canon's marketing mentality causes it to bring out new models more frequently, such that each new model is an incremental improvement over the last, whereas Nikon's new models are lesss frequent but always represent bigger leaps forwarded, compared to the earlier model in the same model-bracket. i.e. it could be argued that Canon gives less value for money per upgrade.

 

8 - I think Canon wins hands down in terms of pocket digicams. As a staunch Nikon user since 1978, I think the design and appearance of Nikon's digicams are really awful, and I grieve that Nikon can't produce nicer pocket digicams. I admit that, in terms of pocket digicams, I am a Canon user (Nikon apoostate).

 

9 - I agree that, at sporting events, there are more white Canon telephotos than black ones. I've often wondered why Nikon didn't go with white telephotos too, since I imagine many of these are used outdoors in the sun, and that the reflectivity of white lenses would be a benefit in the hot sunshine.

 

10 - I couldn't think of a 10th item to round it off.

 

p/s you guys really should look at the new Nikon D200.

[roger_s]

p/s

 

11 - Canon cripple their lower-end models to a large degree, whereas Nikon's lower-end models don't to the same degree as Canon. e.g. the Nikon D50.