Canon v Nikon

[tom_elessar]

<p>@<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=7150947">Francisco Salaquanda</a>—Do you have a link to a digital copy of said photo?</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<blockquote>

<p>I just picked up on the fact that I see a lot of people's websites state they use Canon gear and I wondered if there was a reason for it, I was also interested in why people end up with certain cameras, purely from curiosity.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If I recall correctly, Canon has a larger market percentage Nikon in the space occupied by the sorts of cameras you are thinking about. But, again, there are a ton of factors that cause this, virtually none of which relate to the capabilities of the two brands to produce wonderful photographs. A few things, among many, to consider:</p>

<ul>

<li>You asked about what might be called "professional photographers" (a more complex concept than you might think, by the say), but they make up only a very small percentage of the people buying such cameras. </li>

<li>For a number of years, Canon did manage to bring to market faster than Nikon certain things that many have thought to be important: full frame sensors, less expensive full frame cameras, higher MP sensors. I'm not interested in debating the real value of these things, but Canon was a bit ahead of Nikon's curve, and that has a residual effect - though today the differences are far less clear.</li>

<li>I'm sure you also recognize that the brand/product with the largest market share is not always the best or the most desirable. Sometimes it is; sometimes it isn't - so market share is not necessarily the best measure of a product's worth.</li>

</ul>

<p>You also expressed curiosity about how people "end up with certain cameras." That is a really interesting question, and often the answer is not at all what you would expect, especially when it comes to brand choice. I think that many folks, especially those just getting into photography, imagine that "serious photographers" choose their brand based on some sort of careful, methodical, objective criteria. While some may eventually choose equipment <em>within a brand</em> that way, and others may <em>think</em> they made initial brand decisions on that basis - quite often people come to a brand choice in ways that can approach random.</p>

<p>Lots of folks inherit a camera. I started that way, inheriting second-hand cameras from my father. Others decide they want a camera, look around to see what they can get at a good price, and end up with a brand. Some have a friend using a particular brand, and the friend recommends it. In quite a few cases, people do what they believe to be product research, but the research - as seriously as it may have been undertaken - really has not that much to do with actual functional differences among cameras. (Often, faced with a mountain of statistics about these brands and those models, people fixate on one or two criteria that often turn out to be far less significant than they imagined.)</p>

<p>I shoot Canon. Why? My first DSLR was a Minolta, way "back in the day" when I was a lot younger and purchased my first DSLR out of precious funds. So, for many years I was certain that my choice of Minolta was the best possible choice. In fact, it was a fine camera. (The classic SRT-101, for anyone who cares.) Some years later, as a backpacker and back-country photographer, I became very interested in some smaller and lighter Pentax cameras, and I ended up getting a ME and a MX and a nice group of lenses. In the 90s (!) I first became aware of digital photography technologies and my first digital camera was (wait for it!) the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_QuickTake">Apple QuickTake Camera 100</a>. It was fun, but I was unimpressed with the image quality. Later I picked up a few interesting early point and shoot digital cameras from various manufacturers, and at a point not far after the new millennium, I started thinking that some of the new DSLRs might be good enough to be interesting. I ended up with a Canon DSLR. Why? My brother owned one. So much for brilliant and careful decision making, right? ;-) </p>

<p>I've asked quite a few folks about their initial camera choices and how they ended up with one brand or another today, and you would be surprised at the very different stories, many of which involve about as much nearly random coincidence as my story. </p>

[tom_elessar]

<p>"You also expressed curiosity about how people "end up with certain cameras." That is a really interesting question, and often the answer is not at all what you would expect, especially when it comes to brand choice... Lots of folks inherit a camera."<br /><br />I "inherited" an old Rebel, and when I wanted movie mode and better low-light performance, I bought a t2i, because the differences between the t2i and 5100 seemed marginal. This was also before Sony's latest batch of A-cameras, like the A57, which might've tempted me. But even then, I already had three Canon lenses. <br /><br />Now I have a t2i, two Sigma lenses in Canon's mount, and a Canon 50mm. Which means I'd take a pretty substantial financial hit if I switched. Which means that another brand would need a VERY compelling reason to switch. Plus, I'd like a flash, and once I have a flash... <br /><br />When someone gave me the Rebel to mess around with, I didn't realize that it would affect the path I'd take. <br /><br />"many of which involve about as much nearly random coincidence as my story." <br /><br />That's me! But my original Rebel was purchased because, at the time, the Rebel was less expensive than the alternatives. This goes back to Sarah's point about cost: if a given camera in a given class is less expensive, it will probably start to attract novices / new purchasers. The rumored $1500 Nikon full-frame would be damn attractive to me, for instance. $2000 would be way out of my league, however. Actually, $1500 is out of my league but still tempting. <br /><br />I don't think I'd get any shots with a Nikon 5100 that I couldn't with my current setup (and ditto for vice-versa). </p>

[dan_south]

>> Photography is about seeing, feeling, and shooting -- not comparing specs and shopping. <<

 

Ironically, you posted a link to a website that dedicates a lot of pages to gear.

[g dan mitchell]

<blockquote>

<p>With respect, I suggest you read this, especially the Ansel Adams quote:<br /><a href="http://www.kenblatherwell.com/posts/anything/for/a/hit.htm">http://www.kenblatherwell.com/posts/nonsense/for/hits.htm</a><br />Photography is about seeing, feeling, and shooting -- not comparing specs and shopping.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There are many far better places to find out what Adams said (often wisely or wittily) about many photographic things. One good one, of many better than the link in the earlier post, is here: <a href="http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/ansel_adams.html">http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/ansel_adams.html</a></p>

<p>Adams provides no direct advice about Nikon and Canon, though he did shoot a Leica from time to time. ;-) I've also heard from those who know of these things directly, that many of his cameras were not exactly the newest or fanciest stuff on the market, to say the least. He focused far more attention on his ability to see and on the development of his skills than on gear itself.</p>

<p>OK, one familiar quote: "There is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept."<br>

<br /> <br /> Dan</p>

[zml]

<p>There is nothing worse than moving forward while constatantly looking back: sooner or later you'll bump into a light pole or get run over by a rocket ship (or a stage coach.)</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<blockquote>

<p>There is nothing worse than moving forward while constatantly looking back: sooner or later you'll bump into a light pole or get run over by a rocket ship (or a stage coach.)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes. And I think I'll have a cheese sandwich. Puppies are cute. How is the weather?<br>

<br>

What were we talking about?</p>

[jamie_murray2]

Thanks again everyone, interesting reading.

 

G Dan,

 

Your last comment cracked me up!

[m_tt_donuts]

<p>I haven't read through all the posts but I would say the reason there's so many Canon landscape photographers is that for the past probably 10 years Canon has had the better mid-pro camera. The 5DmkII being more MP was great for landscapes, but the Nikon killer was Canon had video Nikons tended not to. Many (myself included) felt there was more value with Canon. But Nikon got the reputation as being the camera you could pick up and shoot. Better autofocus system, better focus in lower light, exposure, wb, etc. which is good but hard to sell to users compared to the 5DmkII features/specs.</p>

<p>Now what’s bizarre is Nikon has taken all the good things of the Canon 5DmkII, improved them, and put it in the D800 while Canon has taken all the good things associated with Nikon, improved them, and put them in the 5DmkIII. I think the D800 is more Canon than the 5DmkIII, the 5DmkIII more Nikon than the D800. </p>

<p>I don’t think I’m the only one who feels this way. Who is doing the reviews of the D800? Canon users, they far outweigh Nikon users. If the reviewer talks about how difficult it is to set custom WB on a D800, they don't use Nikon (it’s easier). Or use mainly tilt & shift lenses… or compares jpegs instead of Raw (Canon applies high sharpening to jpegs Nikon does not). The above sums up most of the reviewers. On the opposite side we have the popular Nikonians who have not preferred Canon because they like the grab & go (Ken Rockwell, DigitalRev) after comparing the D800 to 5DmkIII for the first time they prefer Canon. </p>

<p>Do I think it’s going to take business away from Canon? Absolutely. I mean come on Nikon was getting killed by the 5DmkII there wasn't much comparison. The D800 vs. 5DmkIII is a comparison. Those with a 5DmkII look at the mkIII as paying a lot of money to get better autofocus but picture quality won’t improve much. Hmm… can wait. Those who haven’t bought anything are going to look at 36MP vs. 22MP, both take video the D800 looks better, the D800 has flash, and face recognition. The 5DmkIII has more accurate wb, better focus, slightly better in low light, and more fps most of the features Nikon couldn't sell about the D700. If I were a new person looking at the two, I would favor the D800 just my opinion. </p>

[g dan mitchell]

<blockquote>

<p>Kent Rockwall, DidjitalRev</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you are looking for authoritative voices, you might want to look a bit further... ;-)</p>

[alan_bessler]

<p>Lanscapes=5D3<br>

Billboards=D800</p>

[dan_south]

You can make a billboard with a 6 MP photo. You can make a billboard from a smart phone photo. You don't need a

D800 for that job. Viewer distance is the key. No one looks at a billboard up close.

[peter_j2]

<blockquote>

<p>Billboards=D800</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Billboards = Preferably medium format or large format cameras</p>

[keith reeder]

<blockquote>

<p>Lanscapes=5D3<br /> Billboards=D800</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Uuummm... No.</p>

<p>Landscapes=D800<br>

Everything else=5D Mk III</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<blockquote>

<p>Landscapes=D800<br />Everything else=5D Mk III</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This silliness is only true if a) you think that the number of MP in this month's models is the definitive decision-point (hint: it isn't) b) you already own Nikon gear or c) you own no gear and imagine that you are about to become an instant landscape photographer based on the number of MP in your camera.<br>

<br>

The D800 and D800E appear to be wonderful cameras for Nikon folks shooting certain subjects in certain ways, and if I happened to shoot Nikon I would most likely acquire one. I happen to shoot landscapes with a 5D2 and darned if I can't do a pretty decent job with that camera...<br>

<br>

Dan</p>

[keith reeder]

<p>That's not <em>remotely</em> my point, Dan - and I'll thank you not to refer to any opinion that doesn't agree with your world view as "silliness", especially when <em>you</em> haven't grasped the point.</p>

<p>For the avoidance of any doubt, my point is this: the D800's clear advantages over the 5D Mk III are it's <strong>ability to resolve detail</strong>; and it's<strong> low ISO DR</strong>, which together seem to be the landscape 'tog's Holy Grail (regardless of the fact that other cameras work perfectly well for landscapes, which is <em>irrelevant</em> to the point under discussion).</p>

<p>But for pretty anything else - sport, wildlife, high ISO work - the 5D Mk III has the advantage over the D800.</p>

<p>(Things like weddings, portaiture, street, either camera is fine).</p>

<p>You're not the only person who has <em>thought about</em> this stuff, you know...</p>

<p> </p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>I don't refer to "any opinion" that way, but I would refer to the two-line simplifications of the decision factors as "silliness," for the reasons I mentioned in my brief note and more.</p>

<p>Take care,</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[25asa]

<p>I was a Canon user right up till this year, when I switched to Nikon. Now I kept a couple Canon lenses and flash, anticipating Canon possibly leap frogging Nikon in a year or twos time frame. But that said I found Nikon to be making better sensor chips then Canon, and DXo is proving it. So I switched- for now. I'll probably keep gear from both brands in the future, and just choose the best body at that time.</p>