Nikon vs Cannon

[bennie_nickolas_hinojos]

<p>Yes I know I am asking the age old question! Personally I am more of a Nikon guy than canon. But with the release of the 5D mark II and the D3X I am not sure what would be the smarter purchase? I know that the Nikon is much more expensive also a photographer friend made the switch from Nikon to Canon when the Mark II came out which got me to wonder. I am not really interested in the HD movie feature of the canon and I am making the switch from film to digital. I love my 4x5 and Hasselblad but other than that I have lost interest with my 35mm cameras. I normally operate fully manual cameras.. started with Pentax K1000 and now have Olympus OM-4T and Nikon FM3a. I really want to get into digital and I have convinced my wife on the investment of a good DSLR camera that I would love to get into the industry with. I am not looking at getting a starter camera and then upgrading to a full frame DSLR. The camera I want that I can use professionally for landscape, indoor studio, weddings, and outdoor portraits. I know that the capabilities of the camera are going to be beyond my own and that is what I want, I just wouldn’t be able to afford a second camera for a long time afterwards. I am interested in the Lens selection for each camera if there is an advantage with one companies lens that the other has trouble competing against? Also camera features and the realistic use of them…for example the Nikon is a low ISO setting than the Canon which makes the Canon look better…but how much noise do you get when you hit 25,600 ISO….so is that just a feature to capture your attention even though it will never be used? Any help anyone can give me will be greatly appreciated….also I ask for unbiased opinions too. Everyone has their brand that they love and think that it is superior because it is a name they are partial to… which in reality yes it may be better in some areas and lacking in others. I strive to know these differences, and I also have time before I purchase… especially with the Canon being out of stock at everyplace I look at so far. So thank you again everyone for reading my novel and helping me out. Greatly appreciate it. Take care and God Bless.<br>

<!-- [if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!-- [endif]--><br>

Bennie Hinojos</p>

 

[douglasely]

<p>My 2 cents . . .<br>

Buy into the system that offers the lenses that you want to use. Lenses first, camera second. Lenses, you will own a long time and they hold their value. Camera bodies are temporary and do not hold their value that well.</p>

<p>The camera that feels right in your yands in the correct choice.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>You do get a bigger bang for your buck with a Cannon.</p><p><br></p><p>Couldn't resist, Now if P.net would only let us edit titles for a while?;)<br>

Pretty much whatever either of these cameras has now that the other doesn't will be on the other one soon enough. Whichever brings up something new, the other responds. Nikon has video? See you and raise you one....<br>

For most of us, it just comes down to what Douglas says, which one feels better to you. Although a long-term (over 30 years) Nikon user in film, I just like the feel of the xxD Canons better. Your personal experience may vary.</p>

[richterjw]

<p>Canon should have chosen a company name that was easier to spell. Imagine how much more successful they might have been. JR</p>

[ralph_jensen]

<p>Fwiw, photo.net used to have a filter that literally wouldn't let a post go through if it was spelled "Cannon"; I believe that back in the Phil G. days the alert said, <em>"Cannon makes towels. Canon makes cameras." </em></p>

<p>I suppose the filter was removed so that people could talk about Civil War reenactments and the like.<em><br /> </em></p>

[SCL]

<p>My advice is Nikon, no, Canon, no, Nicannon....AARGhhhhh. I can't decide. Ah, it's irrelevant. I just go with one or the other and be happy with my photos.</p>

[jackaldridge]

<p>Puhhhhhlllleeeeeeeeezzzzzzzz......</p>

 

[tomwatt]

<p>I have used Canon, Nikon, and Howizters (a type of cannon).<br>

What feels right in your hand during use and provides the lens base you want/need is the most appropriate choice. And that will vary a lot from user to user, with the exception of cannons, which don't fit in the hand, and are common in 75mm, 105mm and 155mm.</p>

[Brian]

<p>Sony. (Or should that be Sonny.)</p>

[craig_gillette]

<p>Howitzers, yeah, not all the good handheld. Kind of heavy, noisy and can get hot. I'd assume howizters do the same.</p>

[colin carron]

<p>That 'Nixon' v Canon thread was fun. Can we merge it with this one?</p>

<p>Pedantic historical footnote: The 1930's name was originally 'Kwanon' after the Buddhist goddess of mercy though apparently she is 'Kwannon'.</p>

<p>Seriously though folks, at the level you are talking about it really depends on your specific requirements and the depth of your pockets. Both brands take very good pictures.</p>

[norton_willingham]

<p>It's personal preference. Some people swear by Canon. Some by Nikon. You just have have to use both. I used to be a die hard Nikon user. But they were so behind the ball on digital (mostly the size of the sensor issue until the D3x) that I made the switch to Canon. I like the Canon image quailty but I hate the controls. I don't find them intuitively place. I loved that you could use an old manual Nikon lens on a new Nikon digital body. Now that Nikon is making full frame sensors, I have considered switching back. Haven't tried a D3x yet but I suppose the next time I get my hands on one, it may make the decision for me.</p>

[bennie_nickolas_hinojos]

<p>I know this can be a heated debate, but I was curious to getting input from people who have dealt with either of the brands, especially the lenses. Because I know the Lenses are going to be the larger investment and I will be able to use them later on on other bodies that would appear in the future. So I Was wondering about lenses, if the Nikon image stabilizer better compared to Canon? Can the canon focus quicker than a Nikon? Image clarity with the optics.....is one lens known to have a slight distortion while the other does not? It is hard to get these answers, and it would be an expensive trial and error test to get the answers myself...one I don't have the money for. Hence why I am on here, but I like the input about the controls for the Canon not being so well placed as the Nikon. I also heard the the Canon F4 lenses are better than the Nikon, but Nikon's F2.8 lenses are better than Canon's....image wise. But I am sure that the differences are ever so slight that I couldn't tell, but a more established professional might. Help please</p>

[jonathan67]

<p>what an annoying question :) toss a coin on brands. Let price govern the brand models but then again if your rich which one, oh dear.... use the alphabet to decide, paper and scissors, names in a hat, </p>

[john_macpherson]

<p>If you have this much trouble deciding what camera brand to buy I would not like to be involved in your decision-making process when it comes to deciding what to actually take a photo of!</p>

[norton_willingham]

<p>Lens factors in determining your camera brand is probably nill. If you think about it, all the Canon and Nikon lenses have millions of dollars invested into their R&D. Both companies aren't going to put out a lens that will extremely tarnish their reputation. But, yes, there are forums and web sites that will take a Canon lens and a Nikon lens of the same focal length and take a picture of the same thing with a 21MP sensor and then blow the images up 1000% and then say, "See! This lens is better than that one because of the slight fringe on this spec of dust in the corner of the room." Truth be told, you will probably never notice what they point out and when your image is framed on your wall I don't any of your guests will ever notice. There are plenty of famous pro photographers that swear by either brand. So, when it comes down to it, it's personal preference. Some people just jive better with a Canon in their hands and some with a Nikon.</p>

[william l. palminteri]

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=353377"><em>Jeremy Richter</em></a><em> </em><a href="../member-status-icons"><em><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub9.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></em></a><em>, Aug 04, 2009; 03:35 p.m.</em><br>

<em>Canon should have chosen a company name that was easier to spell. Imagine how much more successful they might have been. JR</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Jeremy, it's five (5) letters long with two letters the same. How much easier can it get ?<br>

Maybe photoshop will come out with a spellchek (sic) filter for this recurring problem. They've got a solution for every other screwup photographers seem to make.....</p>

<p>Bill P.</p>