Why most PROS use Canon than Nikon?

[flash445]

<p>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.<br>

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.<br>

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.</p>

[fotolopithecus]

<p>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.</p>

[fujimike]

<p>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 :o)</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p>I wonder how much Nikon paid Michael for his post...</p>

[mark_loader]

<p>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?</p>

[tony_leinster]

<p>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!</p>

[stephen_asprey2]

<p>That was a pretty immature comment about Michael, Daniel.<br>

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.<br>

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.</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p>Stephen,</p>

<p><em>That was a pretty immature comment about Michael, Daniel.</em></p>

<p>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.</p>

[fotolopithecus]

<p>Stephen, there won't be any mortal blows inflicted by either Nikon,or Canon on the other you can be fairly certain of that.</p>

[t37traveler]

<p>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."<br>

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. </p>

[neciphoto]

<p>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.</p>

[jphotog]

<p>I use Nikon and I am very happy with my gear. However, I am not a pro.</p>

<p>I often read that Canon are ahead in lenses and that Nikon needs to ´close gaps´ in their line. What´s meant by that?</p>

[rick_m.]

<p>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. <br>

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. <br>

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. <br>

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. <br>

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. <br>

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. <br>

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. </p>

 

[cowboystuff]

<p>boo-ya for <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=692072">Rick McCallum</a> ad I second your emotions!</p>

[dansutton]

<p>just remember to keep your camera recepit to show everyone how creative you are.</p>

[hal_edmonds]

<p>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.</p>

[akajohndoe]

<p>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.</p>

[oskar_ojala]

<p>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.<br>

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.</p>

[fujimike]

<p>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. :o) </p>

[markci]

<p>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.<br /> 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.<br>

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.</p>

<p> </p>

[markci]

<p>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).</p>

[antonio_rodriguez_sanchez]

<p>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.<br>

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.<br>

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.</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p>Michael Moore,<em></em></p>

<p><em>And how on earth could you possibly know i have not used both systems as you dont know me from Adam?</em></p>

<p>Because nobody who has actually used Canon equipment would be so ignorant about it.<em></em></p>

<p><em>Anyway i've never said that Canon were bad camera's</em></p>

<p>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?<em></em></p>

<p><em>shutter speed is faster on most models,</em></p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.<em></em></p>

<p><em>lenses are better quality.</em></p>

<p>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...)</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Nikon also makes top notch glass. But for the photographer on a budget Canon simply has more options.</p>

<p><em>Build quality is far superior</em></p>

<p>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</p>

<p><em>basically most things that make up the camera and picture quality is superior on the Nikon</em></p>

<p>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.</p>

<p><em>The mkD 5II for example is slow and has poor focusing. The 50D has trouble with noise control and again focussing not so good.</em></p>

<p>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</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.<em></em></p>

<p><em>1000D is basically a non-camera for this day and age.</em></p>

<p>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.<em></em></p>

<p><em>They really do research what people want rather than trying to make quick cash like Canon.</em></p>

<p>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?</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>But your post was silly Nikon worship. If you need something to worship, find a religion, not a corporation.</p>

[macmoss]

<p>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?<br>

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.</p>

 

[goad photography]

<p>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. </p>