Nikon vs Canon

[philip_tam]

<blockquote>

<p>To be honest, that's simply not discussing the subject in full. Canon released an adaptor for their EOS bodies so consumers could use the adapter in full. It was a bit pricy then, but now the reason for its price difference is because Canon thought, silly them, that you might finally give in and upgrade. If you want, there are a ton of ones to be had and if you can get an elephoto, its not that bad. Arguing Nikon's sake on the lens issue is just ridiculous. Canon has been using the same mount for the last 20 years now... Have you ever taken a step back and looked at a Nikon compatibility chart?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, yes, of course I have. It takes a bit of sifting, but for me it really boils down to two things: Every new lens Nikon lens I buy now will meter on my Nikon camera. Every new Canon lens I buy now will meter on my Canon camera (yes, I have a Canon body). If I went out and bought a 1977 manual focus lens, it will meter on my Nikon camera. The 1978 FD mount manual focus lens I have in my hand right now will not even *mount* on an EF camera (and let's be realistic, I'm not about to pay $1000 for an EF-FD adaptor).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Canon has been using the same mount for the last 20 years now. If you really want some old glass, why not just continue to use the old camera body too?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Simple question, simple answer. The FD lenses are built like tanks. Seriously. I can use old glass on a *digital* Nikon body. Somebody find me a Canon digital FD mount camera (so in short, I have no choice *but* to use it on an old camera body).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>When are we going to just eyeroll at these threads. They are simply useless... Which is better? Nikon or Canon? Well.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think most certainly the differences are scant such that it really boils down to personal preference. Even if a camera is marginally, quantifiably, better than another, it rarely makes a difference in real world conditions, and most obviously, the actions of the photographer make *much* more difference than any of these comparisons. However, there *are* differences... and it can be fun to discuss them, so long as people don't get their egos bruised.</p>

<p>Put another way, if you throw two individuals into a gun dual, and give one guy a Sig Sauer 556, and the other a H&K 416, who ultimate dies depends vastly on who has better experience and training....... but gun nuts still have tons of fun discussing the differences!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Hey, I took this with a Canon. Can someone tell me how it would be better with a Nikon? Or if I took it with a Nikon, how it would be better with a Canon?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Without knowing the baseline conditions, it's hard to speculate, althought the improvements, if any, are probably marginal. Plus, it's much easier discussing how to improve a bad picture than how to improve a good picture.</p>

<p>Nikon is into visual trademarks that adorn basketball shoes, and I can't deal with that</p>

<p>Such as basketball shoes and red rings around lens fronts? =) I jest... I probably have a looser affiliation with Nikon than you to Canon, but likewise, if Nikon imploded, I would shed a tear, shrug, and go on a Canon shopping spree. I could really enjoy either, I just happened to pick Nikon at a time when its ergonomics were key to me, and built a platform around it.</p>

[peteraitch]

<blockquote>

<p>4) Telezoom. I have a 70-200 F4L. I want the F4L IS. Nikon, however, only offer serious 70-200s in F2.8. Again, I don't want the weight. <em>Advantage Canon </em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Nikkor 70-300 AF-S VR 4.5-5.6G IF-ED. OK, it's slightly slower, but a fabulous lens for little money, so we'll call it a <em>draw</em>.</p>

 

[isaac sibson]

<p>No, we won't... the analogous Canon lens is the 70-300 USM IS. The AFS VR 70-300 doesn't offer internal zoom, tripod mount or F4 aperture at 200mm. For my purposes I don't need my zoom to go to 300 (having the 300 F4). </p>

[peteraitch]

<p>I S - point taken! We can probably agree that Nikon <em>are </em>lagging in terms of modern FF VR glass, although they are slowly rolling out (mainly high-end) goodies with nanocoating etc. The mid-ground is still rather sparse, as you pointed out, and it is unclear when they will be filling the gaps.</p>

<p>For my hobby purposes, "good" well-trusted consumer-grade glass seems to work pretty nicely, and allows me to carry my stuff and continue shooting - whereas huge, heavy (expensive) "pro" zooms would be a definite disincentive. (I'd still love an extreme UW prime, but can't justify one for the limited use it would get).</p>

[isaac sibson]

<p>Indeed. Like I said, I think Nikon are coming out with some fantastic lenses - the 14-24 and 200-400 are both great and the latter is a lens I would very much like. It is just that for my purposes, shooting the things I shoot in the way that I shoot them, Canon on balance have the better lens selection for me. YMMV and all that...</p>

<p>My real point was that when making the comparison between manufacturers people place far too much emphasis on the body. I was talking to a colleague earlier who has a Pentax K7, which from all I've read is a very nice handling body. I've read good reviews of the Sony A900 body also. However, in both those cases those manufacturers do not offer anything in the big/fast glass market, nor anything like the range of specialist lenses that Nikon and Canon do. I think it's most important to build the system around what you need, rather than try to build around a particular body. For example, if you were set on extensive use of tilt-shift lenses then no matter how much you preferred the Sony A900 over the 5D II, the 5D II would remain the better choice. </p>

[derek_thornton1]

<p>I am about as stupid as they get with electronics and have never had an issue with the Nikon Menu! <br>

When I get bored, instead of coming here and bashing the other brand, I go out and take pictures.</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>I guess nobody can tie any brand to the quality of a photograph, so what's the point? Isn't photography supposed to be about photographs?<br /><br /></p>

[joe_howe]

<p>I do understand the frustration with the myriad of menu's with Nikon though I've been using a D80 for quite some time and have gotten quite used to them as some menu's can be customized. In the world of digital photography I don't understand why anyone would want to shoot in B&W anyways. Throwing away all that colour information seems ridiculous to me. Photo's should be converted to B&W in post-production while saving a copy in colour. When my client's request B&W images I give them both, because clients have been known to change they're minds.</p>

[zml]

<blockquote>

<p>I can use old glass on a *digital* Nikon body.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You mean "old, manual focus, Nikon glass"? Oh yes, but you need a big lens-body compatibility chart. You know, some lenses will mount but not meter and focus only if you are swinging from a tree by your tail holding the camera in your teeth...</p>

[thomas_hardy1]

<p>C-V-N discussions. Like watching dorks arguing with nerds as to who has the best techniques to pick up girls.</p>

 

[paul_de_ley]

<blockquote>

<p>I was talking to a colleague earlier who has a Pentax K7, which from all I've read is a very nice handling body. I've read good reviews of the Sony A900 body also. However, in both those cases those manufacturers do not offer anything in the big/fast glass market, nor anything like the range of specialist lenses that Nikon and Canon do. I think it's most important to build the system around what you need, rather than try to build around a particular body. For example, if you were set on extensive use of tilt-shift lenses then no matter how much you preferred the Sony A900 over the 5D II, the 5D II would remain the better choice.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ok this is a common argument for those who are not well versed in other systems, and it has been deflated often enough before, but since this thread is all about flogged horses we might as well give it a go again:</p>

<p>The argument of limited versus wide lens range can just as easily be turned on its head. Sony and Pentax have a huge array of good glass available including highly specialized lenses - take a look at the lens databases in www.dyxum.com to see what all works on Sony for example. The difference is that you may in some cases have to figure out/be willing to invest in lenses that are not made new anymore (eg the Minolta 600 f4 apo) or stick with third party offerings (eg Sigma 500 f4.5) or be resourceful enough to adapt other options (eg using the <a href="http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/mirex-m645m42-tilt-shift-adapter-mini-review_topic51123.html">Mirex tilt/shift adapter for Mamiya lenses</a>).</p>

<p>On the other hand, Sony has the world's only 500 f8 AF mirror lens and 30mm f2.8 macro, as well as the stupendously sharp 70-400 f4-5.6 G and Carl Zeiss lenses. That includes lenses that are much more affordable and much more relevant to frequent use by the vast majority of digital photographers than any same-brand specialist supertele or tilt-shift lens. And because of sensor stabilization they all come with a few stops gain while handholding.</p>

<p>So much like body quality/functions, for the large majority of us true lens range is in reality not nearly as decisively different among brands as all that, even for those among us who do research and understand their present and future needs well before committing to any one system. What has been (and continues to be) lacking in other brands from the perspective of certain specialized types of genuine pros, is a well-established support system similar to what Nikon and Canon provide - although that really is only relevant for the tiny fraction of us who can establish and maintain successful careers in sports/wildlife/war photography etc.</p>

<p>Obviously if you're at the other end of the scale, starting out and not knowing yet how far & which directions photography will take you to, then you really can't go wrong buying into one of the market leading systems.</p>

<p>Being a safe choice certainly does not mean those are the only good choices, however, eg at the moment the Pentax K-x or K20D appear to be well ahead of the pack in many price/value respects for first-time DSLR buyers. The assumption that people should and do choose systems based on specialist lens options is a faulty one. Canon's recent dip in SLR market share suggests that more beginners are doing their own research, rather than just buying off the shelf whatever SLR model happens to be on sale this week in walmart or costco.</p>

[david carver]

<p>I used Nikon for years but switched because of the Mark II. The other benefit is the super sharp 24-105mm. I love that lens. Other than that I really don't see much of a difference. I guess I could have waited for a Nikon version of the Mark II. I really prefer the build and ergonomics of Nikon.</p>

[wenhan_xue]

<p>A couple of ways to stay away from the fight of "Canon vs. Nikon":<br>

1. Own both brands, or<br>

2. neither of them.</p>

[skyjammer]

<p>Folks, just give it a rest. Sheesh.</p>

[jackaldridge]

<p>So many brands..... so little time!</p>

[philip_tam]

<blockquote>

<p>I guess nobody can tie any brand to the quality of a photograph, so what's the point? Isn't photography supposed to be about photographs?<br /><br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>A 1" grouping on a paper target with an H&K P2000 pistol is undistinguishable from a 1" grouping with a Sig Sauer P226. Firearms are ultimately about groupings. But enthusiasts have a great time talking about the guns themselves.</p>

<p>In general, the Nikon vs. Canon discussion really isn't a huge deal, much for the reasons you mention, but it is something fun to discuss as long as people can carry the conversation with civility, be objective, and not view it as an assault to their ego (though I understand that frequently, such conversations turn ugly). It's also a huge waste of time........ but so are many forums.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>You mean "old, manual focus, Nikon glass"? Oh yes, but you need a big lens-body compatibility chart. You know, some lenses will mount but not meter and focus only if you are swinging from a tree by your tail holding the camera in your teeth...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Do you know how often I've used that compatibility chart? Not once. It's just something you glance at when you're curious. The fact remains that all my friends who use Nikon, we borrow lenses from each other and they all work. No chart checking. When we rent a lens? Again... no chart checking.<br>

I will reiterate that I think Canon's move to EF was a good thing, both for Canon and for photography in general. The EF mount is a great design, and specifically for me, 'obsolete' state of the FD mount means I have all these old, well designed lenses and cameras that I can buy on the cheap.</p>

<p> </p>

[jnsengupta]

<p>I guess nobody can tie any brand to the quality of a photograph, so what's the point? Isn't photography supposed to be about photographs?<br>

-Jeff Spirer<br>

Exactly the point, I fully agree with you. By the way Jeff, that is a nice photograph you have posted. But of these two beautiful women who is Canon and who is Nikon?</p>

 

[dan_south]

Too bad the derby girls weren't wearing their favorite cameras. And not much else!

[faysal]

<p>[joke] Orange and white is canon, because its giving the purple (nikon), a smack down. [/joke]</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>I'm absolutely convinced - because it is Tuesday - that Ninon is better than Cakon, or maybe it was the other way around? But Mintax and Pony are in competition with Solympus being better if it is Wednesday. And before noon. Or something.</p>

<p>Derby girls? Did someone mention derby girls?</p>

<p>And why <em>is</em> a duck a duck? Because one leg is both the same...</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>WOW! </p>

<p>Well, here's what I want. I want a camera with the soul of the Nikon, but with the excellent lens choices of the Canon, but with the ergonomics of the Olympus E3... THAT would be a camera.</p>

<p>Seriously, a lot of companies make great cameras.</p>

[wilsontsoi]

<p>Jeff, it's really easy to tell in your photo here that the Canon gal is giving the Nikon chic a beating...</p><div></div>

[joe_howe]

<p>The only reason anyone ever bought a Canon is because the store was probably sold out of Nikon.</p>

[ben_s2]

<p>Oh man, this thread keeps getting better.</p><div></div>

[thomas_hardy1]

<blockquote>

<p>The only reason anyone ever bought a Canon is because the store was probably sold out of Nikon.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>So, we've found the dork. Just waiting for the nerd.....</p>