Why most PROS use Canon than Nikon?

daverhaas · March 7, 2009

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

sky blue · March 7, 2009

(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.)

tomwatt · March 7, 2009

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.

gary_eaves · March 7, 2009

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

kelly_flanigan1 · March 7, 2009

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.

tom_burke3 · March 7, 2009

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.

kelly_flanigan1 · March 7, 2009

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.

corkman · March 7, 2009

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.

andrew_gale · March 7, 2009

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.

jane_rickard · March 7, 2009

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!

stephen_asprey2 · March 7, 2009

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.